- (1.) SUDHIR Naniin, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26-3-1w passed by respondent No. 1 al lowing tilt appeal and dismissing the release application filed by the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEFLY staled, the facts are that the petitioner filed an application under See-lion 21 (l) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) against Mubarak AH respondent No. 5 with the allegations that Smt. Raisa wife of Akil Ahmed (mother of the petitioner) pur chased the property in dispute and Mubarak Ali was the tenant since before the purchase of the property. Smt. Raisa made an oral gift of the disputed property in his favour. She had also directed the tenant to pay rent to the petitioner. He started realising the rent from him. The disputed property is in a dilapidated condi tion and cracks have developed in walls and ceiling, it requires demolition and reconstruction. Mubarak Ah respondent No. 5 filed written statement. He admitted the rate, of rent and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also admitted that the disputed proper ty is in a dilapidated condition. He wanted that the time may be granted to vacate the disputed accommodation but after its reconstruction, reconstructed shop be given to him in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application on 4-5-1996. The petitioner took possession of the disputed property on 7-7-1996. Mohammed Ashif respondent No. 4 filed appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 4-5-1996 alleg ing that he was in occupation of the dis puted property and he has been illegally dispossessed in pursuance to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 4-5-1996. His case was that Mubarak Ali was not tenant of the disputed property. The disputed property was a residential build ing and he was residing in it. His version was that Ehsan Khan was the owner of this building. After the death of Ehsan Khan, he was succeeded by his widow Bundi and sons Sayeed Ahmad, Rashid Ahmad, Rasheed and daughters Shahjahan, Shahnay. Bano, Rashida, Saira and Sayeeda. Saira, Sayeeda and. their mother Bundi are dead. Sayeed Ahmad one of the sons of Ehsan Khan had executed registered agree ment for sale on 16-7-1994 in his favour in respect of his share in the building in ques tion. He subsequently colluded with Smt. Raisa Begum and threatened to transfer to a third party. He filed Suit No. 324 of 1994 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) City, Saharanpur restraining the defen dants from transferring the property to any one. The suit is still pending.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 has allowed the appeal holding that the disputed premises is not a shop but is part of big house. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected on 26-3-1996. There are two questions, firstly, as to whether Mubarak All was the tenant of the disputed premises and secondly whether Mohammed Ashif respondent No. 4 had, prima facie, any right and title over the property in dispute.;