ORDER :- On 1st June, 1965 the petitioner was let out house No. 90-A Mahanagar, Lucknow by the opposite party No. 2 acting for himself and the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 who are his brothers, at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The rate of monthly rent was thereafter increased from time to time and it was finally enhanced to Rs. 425 with effect from Ist of August, 1972. The opposite parties 2 to 4 filed an application against the petitioner under S. 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, the Act) on the ground, inter alia that the house was required for the residence of opposite party No. 2. Eviction of the petitioner was accordingly sought for from the said house. The application was resisted by the petitioner pleading, inter alia, that his need was more genuine and pressing than that of opposite parties 2 to 4. On 19-10-1973, an application was made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that opposite party No. 2 had not disclosed to the petitioner that he was not the real owner of the premises and that the petitioner had then learnt that the house really belonged to the Improvement Trust from whom the respondent had taken it on hire-purchase basis. It was, therefore, urged that the application by opposite parties 2 to 4 under S. 21 of the Act was not maintainable. A copy of the application dated 19-10-1978 is Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. The petitioner asserted that the fact of ownership of the premises vesting in the Improvement Trust, Lucknow was not known to the petitioner till 19-10-1978. In para 13 of the writ petition it is stated that the opposite parties 2 to 4 purchased the premises by a sale deed dated 10-4-1974. In para 14 of the writ petition it is, therefore, maintained that the provisions of the Act were not applicable in view of the provisions contained in S. 2 (a) of the Act; hence the application under S. 21 of the Act was incompetent. The Prescribed Authority, Lucknow however, by its order dated 25-11-1975 allowed the application of opposite parties 2 to 4 under S. 21 of the Act and directed the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in suit. The petitioner preferred an appeal against that order which was rejected. True copies of the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the learned Addl. District Judge, Lucknow made in appeal are Annexures-8 and 10 respectively. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner in para 17 of the writ petition that before the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge it was urged that on 27-7-1973 when the application under S. 21 of the Act was made, the premises vested in and belonged to a local authority and as such the application was not maintainable. In this connection reference to grounds 1 and 2 in the memo of appeal filed before the learned District Judge, Lucknow, a true copy of which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition, was made. The learned Judge did not take notice of these grounds and rejected the appeal by his order dated 20-2-1976, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The petitioner has, therefore, moved this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the said order of the learned II Addl. District Judge, Lucknow and for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the said order.

2. The opposite parties 2 to 4 have resisted this petition, Manmohan Batra, Opposite party No. 2, has deposed in his counter affidavit that the house in question was taken on hire purchase basis under an agreement dated 29-2-1960 made between the Governor of Uttar Pradesh through the Nazul Officer of the Improvement Trust and Mr. Gur Sharan Lal Srivastava, a retired Judge of Allahabad High Court. Under the terms of that agreement the lessee was entitled to transfer his rights and the hire purchase Money was to be paid in instalments extending to a period of thirty years. Mr. Gur Sharan Lal Srivastava executed a sale deed on 26-6-1962 in respect of his ri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document