V.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This petition and the connected civil revisions relate to dispute about shop No. 97/317, Talaq Mahal, Kanpur and arise out of controversy between the parties in regard thereto. They are, consequently, being decided by a common judgment.
(2.) Mohammad Sabir Husain, Mohammad Isarar Husain and Mohammad Anwar Husain who arc all sons of Haji Sadiq Husain are owners (for brevity, the landlords) of the shop in dispute of which one Ahmad Hasan was a tenant. An application for the release of the premises was made under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter the Act). The tenant filed an objection but during the pendency of the proceedings died on February 20, 1974. One Mohammad Ayub (the third respondent in the writ petition) filed an application in the proceedings on March 13, 1974 for being substituted as an heir of the deceased tenant. Substitution, which was allowed by an order dated March 18, 1974, was made by the landlords on March 19, 1974. Soon thereafter, an application was moved by the landlords on March 25, 1974 alleging that there had been a compromise between them and Mohammad Ayub under which Mohammad Ayub had agreed to vacate the shop unconditionally and the shop was to be released in favour of the landlords. The present petitioner moved an application before the Prescribed Authority on March 25, 1974 purporting to be an objection to the application of Mohammad Ayub dated March 13, 1974 to to be substituted as heir of the deceased-tenant. In this objection, which was supported by an affidavit of the petitioner dated March 24, 1974, it was asserted that the deceased tenant had not left behind either a widow or any son or daughter and that the petitioner who was the own elder brother of the tenant and his two sisters, Smt. Zohra Khatoon and Smt. Saghira Khatoon alone were Iris heirs. It was also asserted that the deceased-tenant did not have any brother by the name of Mohammad Yusuf nor was Mohammad Ayub, who had applied for being substituted in place of the tenant of the shop, purporting to be the son of Mohammad Yusuf, was his nephew. It was asserted further that Mohammad Ayub was a fictitious person set up by the landlords and that the only heirs who could be brought on record in place of the deceased-tenant were the petitioner and the two aforesaid sisters. In spite, however, of the objection which, according to the respondents, was withdrawn by the petitioner on July 4, 1974, an order of release was passed in favour of the landlords on October 17, 1974. An appeal was filed by the petitioner against this order before the District Judge on November 12, 1974. His prayer, however, for staying the implementation of the order of release was rejected on December 18, 1974. Yet another application for stay was filed by the petitioner on January 10,1975 but it was also rejected by the District Judge. On January 13, 1975, according to the respondents, the petitioner filed suit No. 70 of 1975 but failed to obtain an ex parte injunction against the implementation of the order of release. On January 17, 1975, writ petition No. 657 of 1975 was filed by the present petitioner against the order dated January 10, 1975 passed by the District Judge refusing the interim order against implementation of the release order during the pendency of the appeal before him. The petition was admitted to hearing and an ex parte interim order staying the implementation of the order of release was granted by this court. That order was, however, vacated on April 29, 1975 and on July 29, 1975, an application for review of the order dated April 29, 1975 was also rejected. Meanwhile, the petitioner made several applications in the suit seeking an interim injunction against the implementation of the order of release and one such application was rejected by the learned Munsif before whom the suit is pending on May 22, 1978 after hearing the parties. An appeal against that order (being Misc. Appeal No. 190 of 1978) having been dismissed on August 31, 1978, the petitioner along with Sagir Ahmad and Anwar Ali, who are all plaintiffs in suit No. 70 of 1975 filed a Civil Revision No. 3652 of 1978 in this court against these orders. This application in revision was admitted for hearing by this Court on October 18, 1978.
(3.) In the meantime, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of release dated October 17, 1974 was dismissed by the District Judge on September 9, 1975. This order was assailed in writ petition No. 9971 of 1975 on September 11, 1975. The petition was admitted to hearing and an interim order restraining the implementation of the order of release was passed. This writ petition and the earlier petition No. 657 of of 1975 came up for hearing together. Both the petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge (K. C. Agarwal, J.' on March 2, 1976. Abdul Hamid went up against the dismissal of writ petition No. 9971 of 1975 to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 522 of 1976 under Article 136 of the Constitution. This appeal was decided by the Supreme Court by its order dated Oct. 18, 1976 (since reported in AIR 1977 SC 1912). By this order of which a copy has been appended as annexure 5 to the counter affidavit in the present ease of Mohammad Sabir Husain, the 4th respondent and one of the landlords, the Supreme Court set aside the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority and remanded the matter to it "to dispose of the objections of the appellant (the petitioner) dated March 25, 1974 by deciding as to who is the heir....................... .........If Mohammad Ayub is found to be the heir of Ahmad Hasan, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 (the landlords) will be entitled to obtain the release order in their favour on the basis of the compromise with Mohammad Ayub but if on the other hand, the appellant is found to be an heir of Ahmad Hasan, the abatement of the release application, if any, will be set aside and the appellant will be added as legal representative of Ahmad Hasan and after giving an opportunity to the appellant to file his written statement in answer to the release application within 15 days from the date of his being joined as party, the Prescribed Authority will proceed to dispose of the release application ..................." In consequence of this order of the Supreme Court dated October 18, 1976, the Rent Control Tribunal which had, in the meantime, been constituted at Kanpur under the provisions of the Act dealt with the matter and came to the conclusion in its order dated April 26, 1977 that Mohammad Ayub was the heir of the deceased tenant and that the landlords are entitled to an order of release in their favour on the basis of the compromise entered into by Mohammad Ayub with them. An appeal against this order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the District Judge, Kanpur on May 20, 1977 by a detailed judgment of which annexure 4 to the petition is a copy. This appeal had been preferred by the present petitioner alone. Sagir Ahmad and Anwar Ahmad, the two other plaintiffs in suit No. 70 of 1975 also filed a separate appeal (No. 46 of 1977) challenging the order of release dated April 26, 1977. This appeal was dismissed as not maintainable on May 28, 1977.;