JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A.Z. Siddiqui, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.

2. Vide order date 17.01.2023, notices to opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 to 9 being merely proforma in nature was dispensed with.

3. By consent of learned counsel for parties and since pleadings are already complete, petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.

4. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing judgment and order dated 26.05.2022 passed in P.A. Suit No.01 of 2015 instituted by opposite party no.3 against petitioners for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages. The appellate judgment dated 15.12.2022 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal (Rent) No.13 of 2022 whereby the judgment of Prescribed Authority has been upheld is also under challenge.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the property in question which was residential in nature was earlier in the coparcenership of one Bhola Nath, Smt. Raj Rani and Prahlad Prasad. It is submitted that during the life time of Bhola Nath, the parties were settled in their own portion of the aforesaid property and the predecessor in interest of petitioners, Jai Narain Singh Kushwaha was inducted into the property. It is submitted that there never existed any Landlord-Tenant relationship between Bhola Nath and Jai Narain Singh Kushwaha. It is further submitted that subsequently in 1958, predecessor in interest of petitioners, Jai Narain Singh Kushwaha purchased the property in question from Bhola Nath by means of an oral sale and ever since, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners is in possession of the property in question as owner.

6. It is submitted that subsequently, the petitioners were surprised to receive notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act sent by opposite party no.3 indicating therein that he is the owner in possession of the property concerned requiring ejectment and arrears of rent and damages from the petitioner. It is also submitted that subsequently application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) was filed by opposite party no.3 against petitioners seeking release of the property on the ground of bonafide need. It is submitted that petitioners put in appearance in the aforesaid proceedings and filed their written statement specifically denying any Landlord-Tenant relationship between the petitioners and opposite party no.3. Attention has been drawn to additional plea taken in written statement to the effect that the property in question was in possession of Late Mr. Jai Narain Singh Kushwaha and after his demise, petitioners being his heirs are in possession over the property concerned in succession. Plea with regard to oral sale of the property between Bhola Nath and Jai Narain Singh Kushwaha has also been adverted to. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the pleadings taken in written statement to the effect hat an alternative plea of adverse possession has also been taken by petitioners in the written statement.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner as such submits that once a specific plea has been taken by petitioner-defendants that they were not tenants in the property in question and were in fact owners of the property, the appropriate action required to be taken by Prescribed Authority was to have returned the plaint for presentation in appropriate proceedings before competent court. It is also submitted that the Prescribed Authority as well as appellate authority were required to have addressed the issue of title as claimed by petitioner-defendants as incidental to the main issue but issue regarding Landlord-Tenant relationship has been decided in a cursory manner by the courts only basing their decision on the alleged sale deed dated 01.10.1986 said to have been executed in favour of opposite party no.3-plaintiff without any ad