B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THE two petitions arise out of the same impugned orders and involve similar controversy of fact and law and hence it is convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment. These petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the orders dated 3-10-1979 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Allahabad and dated 22-8-1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Additional City Magistrate), Allahabad to the extent they are against the petitioners in proceedings under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short the Act). The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and they are these. Bungalow no. 18, Stanley Road, Allahabad including servant quarters, was sought to be acquired by the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. The actual possession is alleged to have been delivered to the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad on 25-3-1976, the same day, its possession was given to the Assistant Court Officer of High Court, Allahabad on behalf of the Registrar, High Court as representative of Judicial Department, U. P. Government.
(3.) AFTER the possession was delivered, an application under Sec. 4 of the Act was filed by respondent no. 1 against petitioners nos. 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9 (of Writ Petition No. 8850 of 1979) who were occupying the servants quarters as licensee of the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1101 of 1980, who claimed as the tenants of half of Bungalow no. 18 including the servants quarters. Separate notices were served on respondents 4 to 8 of Writ Petition No. 1101 of 1980. It was alleged in the application under Section 4 of the Act that the tenancy was created by the Panchayati Akhara, Daraganj in favour of Keshav Dayal, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners of Writ No. 1101 of 1980. But after possession was delivered to the respondent no. 1 on 25-3-1976, the possession of the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 8850 of 1979 became unauthorised within the meaning of Sec. 2 (g) of the Act. The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 8850 of 1979 filed objections against the notices challenging their validity before the Prescribed Authority (Additional City Magistrate), Allahabad that the State of U. P. or the High Court stepped into the shoes of the landlord (i. e. Panchayati Akhara), that their possession was not unauthorised nor notices under Section 4 of the Act were legal. The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1101 of 1980, however, were claiming as heirs of late Keshav Dayal and hence they became tenants-in-chief and prayed to be made parties in proceedings under Sec. 4 of the Act. It was further alleged by the petitioners that as soon as they came to know about the proceedings under Section 4 (1) of the Act, they made applications on 13-8-1979 in all the cases pending against the respondents 4 to 8 to be impleaded as necessary parties. The petitioners prayed for an opportunity being given to file their objection as the tenants-in-chief. But ultimately, the respondent no. 3 without impleading the petitioners, passed the order dated 22-8-1979 allowing the application of respondent no. 1 under Sec. 4 and appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad by his order dated 3-11-1979. Against these impugned orders, the present two writ petitions have been filed in this Court.;