- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 29-11-1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application and the order dated 10-1-1997 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order by respondent No. 1.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed application for release of the shop in question under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegation that he is landlord of the disputed shop situate in House No. 1/538-539 Mohalla Thatheri Bazar, Golaghat, Ram Nagar, Varanasi. He is un employed and requires the shop in question for carrying on business. He alleged that the property belonged to Sarottam Seth and after his death it was inherited by his widow, Ramwanti. He is adopted son of Sarottam Seth. The petitioner filed objection stat ing that Smt. Ramwanti had executed a gift deed of the disputed property in favour of the Bhola Nath on 15-12-1977. Smt. Ram wanti and Ganga Shanker filed Original suit No. 238 of 1983 for cancellation of the gift deed dated 15-12-1977 and in the suit the matter was compromised by the parties and easter half portion of this house was given to Bhola Nath. His name was also mutated in the municipal record. The petitioner, after the said compromise, was not entitled to realise any rent. It was further denied that the need of respondent No. 3 was bona fide. It was contended that Deonath is a tenant of the adjoining portion and the respondent No. 2 can file an application as against him. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the petitioner was paying rent to respondent No. 3. There was relationship of landlord and tenant. Respondent No. 3 was unemployed and required the shop in question for his personal use. The applica tion was allowed by order dated 29-11-1994. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 10-1-1997. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) THE parties have exchanged their affidavits and the writ petition is being final ly disposed of. I have heard Sri R. S. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the respon dent.;