Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri G.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohammad Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 3.
(2.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has raised two intricate but interesting questions of law; Firstly, as to whether it was permissible for the execution court to dispossess the petitioner of the rented shop under Section 23 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) while executing an exparte compromise decree rendered on 13.5.2009 against a third party, simply for the reason that petitioner's occupation was bereft of an allotment order issued under Section 11 of the Act. Secondly, as to whether the alleged collusive and fraudulent decree despite a specific protest raised by the petitioner was rightly held binding and enforceable against the petitioner by the execution court.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the proceedings for release of the premises (a rented shop) on the basis of bona fide need were initiated by opposite parties no. 1 to 3 under Section 21(1)(a) read with 16(1)(6) of the Act on 16.4.2009 before the Prescribed Authority and notices were accordingly issued to the third party viz. so-called tenant (Phool Chandra Umarvaish) for appearance on 8.5.2009. It appears that the said tenant viz. Phool Chandra Umarvaish appeared before the Prescribed Authority much before the date fixed i.e. on 28.4.2009 and filed a written statement on the same very day. Thereafter a compromise was filed by him on 8.5.2009 on the basis of which a compromise decree was rendered by the Prescribed Authority on 15.2009. The compromise in its last but one paragraph mentioned that in case the so-called tenant (Phool Chandra Umarvaish) fails to hand over peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord, it shall be open to seek eviction of the judgement debtor through execution of the compromise decree. The alleged tenant seems to have failed to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord as a result whereof, execution proceedings were initiated by opposite parties no. 1 to 3 under Section 23 of the Act on 20.7.2009.;