R.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Agra, dated 12.11.1987 dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the Addl. Munsif, Agra, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for an ad interim injunction.
(2.) THE facts of the case briefly are that one Raj Bahadur Jain was originally the owner of the property in dispute i.e. 1/122, Kinari Bazar, Agra, who let out the same to one Pyare Lal. Pyare Lal in his turn sublet the first floor of the said house to the petitioner and the second floor to Gopal Das Rathi, the brother of the petitioner, in the year 1948 with the permission of Raj Bahadur Jain, the then landlord. Subsequently, in the year 1963, Raj Bahadur Jain sold the aforesaid premises in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 4 and 5, who are now the landlords. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed Case No. 95 of 1964 under Section 3 of the U.P. Act No. III of 1947 for permission to sue Pyare Lal as well as the petitioner and his brother Gopal Das Rathi for ejectment and it was stated in the said application by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 that the petitioner was a sub-tenant in the premises in dispute. The said case was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the premises was sub-let by Pyare Lal with the permission of Raj Bahadur Jain, who was the landlord and hence the petitioner was legal sub-tenant and in possession as such. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, vide his order, dated 9.8.1966 dismissed the application moved by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 holding that the petitioner and his brother Gopal Das Rathi were legal sub-tenants with the permission of the then landlord and the need of the landlord was not bonafide. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 then went up in revision before the Commissioner, who also dismissed the same, vide his order, dated 13.10.1966. The revision filed under Section 7-F of the U.P. Act No. III of 1947 was also dismissed. Thereafter, on coming into force of the U.P. Act No. III of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed an application for release under Section 16 of the Act against the heir of Pyare Lal as also against the petitioner which application was also dismissed on 6.11.1973. The appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed on 13.12.1975. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 having failed in their attempt to eject the petitioner twice then filed an application for release under Section 21 of the Act on 30.6.1978 against Ram Das alone (heir of Pyare Lal) without impleaing the petitioner, who was in occupation as sub-tenant. According to the case of the petitioner, Ram Das colluded with the respondents No. 3 to 5 as a result of which Ram Das filed a compromise surrendering his rights on the basis of which the release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 31.7.1978 in favor of respondent Nos 3 to 5. Since the petitioner was not impleaded as a party nor was he aware of the proceedings for release initiated by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 against Ram Das, on coming to know of the order of release passed on 31.7.1978, he filed an application for impleadment in Case No. 46 of 1978 on the ground that the petitioner was a legal sub-tenant and the order of release could not be passed without considering the need of the petitioner also. The impleadment application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that after the order of release was passed, he had become functus officio. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed on 20.10.1978 with the observation that whether the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act were collusive or not is a matter which could be determined after taking evidence for which the proper remedy would be a regular suit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a regular suit No. 7140 of 1978 claiming that the order of release, dated 31.7.1978 is nullity and passed behind the back of the petitioner and hence the petitioner could not be evicted in pursuance of the said order. During the pendency of the suit petitioner also prayed for an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 from dispossessing the petitioner in pursuance of the order of release, dated 31.7.1978 which was rejected by the Addl. Munsif, Agra, vide his order, dated 7.10.1982 on the ground that the sub-lease in favour of the petitioner was invalid as there was no prior permission of the District Magistrate as required under the old U.P. Act No. III of 1947 and further that the sub-tenant had no right to be heard in proceedings for release of the accommodation under Section 21 of the Act. The petitioner went up in appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Agra who also, vide his order dated 12.11.1987 dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court.
(3.) HEARD Shri Prakash Gupta on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Subodh Kumar for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.;