S.U. Khan, J. - (1.)The land over which shop in dispute is constructed belonged to a waqf. The mutwalli on 7.6.1954 executed a lease deed in favour of Ram Chandra Saxena, respondent No. 3, since deceased and survived by Legal Representatives, in respect of part of waqf land over which he constructed two shops-one was let out to Hiralal, the petitioner (i.e., shop in dispute) and the other shop was let out to another tenant, which has got no concern with the instant writ petition.
(2.)Ram Chandra Saxena respondent No. 3 filed release application under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioner-tenant, which was initially numbered as Case No. 126 of 1975. Later on it was re-numbered as case No. 56 of 1979. The Prescribed Authority/City Munsif, Bareilly, decided the release application on 8.12.1979. Prescribed authority held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties and that the need of the landlord Ram Chandra Saxena was bona fide. However, question of comparative hardship was decided in favour of the tenant, hence release application was rejected. Against the said judgment and order Ram Chandra Saxena filed Rent Control Appeal No. 39 of 1980. Vth Additional District Judge, Bareilly, on 28.11.1980 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority and allowed the release application of Ram Chandra Saxena under Section 21 of the Act. The revisional court held that need of the landlord was bona fide as decided by the prescribed authority. The appellate court held that tenant had got alternative accommodation for running his business in the shop where his two sons were carrying on their business and they were residing with him. In any case, petitioner did not show that any efforts were made by him to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application, hence also balance of comparative hardship was tilted against him as held by the Supreme Court in B. C. Bhutada v. G. R. Mundada AIR2003 SC 2713 , JT2003 (1 )SC 438 , 2003 (1 )SCALE147 , (2003 )2 SCC320 , 2003 (1 )UJ726 (SC ). Accordingly, I hold that the findings of the lower appellate court regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship decided in favour of the landlord respondent No. 3 do not suffer from any error of law (bona fide need has been decided in favour of the landlord by both the courts below).
(3.)However, one more important point to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether petitioner still continues to be the tenant or has become owner or part owner of the shop in dispute. This point has very vehemently been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner. This question arises on the following facts and circumstances.