V.K.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) IN this bunch of writ petitions, petitioners claim that they are tenants in disputed accommodation with the consent and knowledge of the previous landlord, who had been regularly accepting rent from petitioners. The rent was being noted in the diary maintained by him for the said purpose. Said premises is big Ahata having 35 tenants, each having one or two rooms in their possession. The condition of building is unhygienic made of mud mortar and the roof of the rooms is old khaprail. The building in question is situated in an area which is mostly occupied by poors, scheduled caste and backward class people and closed to a nala. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, son and father, purchased the said premises in question on 27.10.2005. After the purchase of the aforementioned property, proceedings under section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, were initiated against all the 35 tenants, claiming vacancy in the respective accommodation on same common ground, that these 35 tenants were in unlawful occupation of their respective portions and the same are vacant. It was also stated that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 would carry cloth business. Against the said proceedings, petitioners filed their objections, taking specific plea that they had been occupying the premises since prior to 1977 and further it was mentioned that with therein family members, they were staying in the premises in question and new purchasers were builders and were putting undue pressure for evicting petitioners from the premises in question, for which proceedings under Sections 107/116, Cr.P.C. were also initiated. The petitioners took specific stand that they were in peaceful possession of the premises in dispute and in this background proceeding under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act was not justifiable. On 6.2.2007 vacany was declared and then release order was passed on 3.5.2007. Against said orders, petitioners filed revision. Said revision has been dismissed. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the writ petition. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed and thereafter with the consent of the parties, present writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing and disposal. Parties to the dispute have agreed to the Writ Petition No. 40144 of 2007 being taken up as leading case and all the writ petitions being decided by a common judgment. This is how all the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment.
(3.) SRI P.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended with vehemence that in the present case, petitioners were tenant of the premises in question for more than 20 years and the erstwhile landlord never took any action nor sent any notice for initiating any action against the petitioners. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are builders, are trying to grab the property and evict the petitioners by unlawful means by taking cover of the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and here in the present case Rent Control and Eviction Officer mechanically proceeded to accept the claim of landlord, ignoring the long standing possession of petitioners; as such orders passed are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.;