The court upheld the validity of the impugned orders, emphasizing the applicability of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 and the enforceability of the sale deed in favor of the landlady. The court also emphasized the limited scope of judicial review and the need for self-evident errors to warrant interference in the decisions of the lower authorities.

U.C. DHYANI, J.

1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ or order to set aside/quash the impugned orders dated 20.08.2011 (contained as Annexure no. 9 to the writ petition) and 06.11.2017 (contained as Annexure no. 14 to the writ petition).

2. Facts giving rise to present writ petition are that in the year 1949, an allotment order was issued in the name of Mr. A.F. Buck by the then R.C.E.O./D.S.O. Nainital, vide order dated 08.04.1949. The landlord of the disputed premise was Sri Param Shah. Mr. A.F. Buck expired in 1961 and thereafter his wife Mrs. C.E. Buck applied for regularization of allotment dated 08.04.1949 by moving an application dated 15.05.1963, stating therein that the Buck Preparatory School (here-in-after referred to as ‘BPS’) is running in the allotted premises for the last 12 years. The tenancy was regularized vide order dated 15.05.1963 by then R.C.E.O. / S.D.O., Nainital. Rent of allotted premises was deposited by BPS which was running therein. The preparatory school was being run by Mrs. C.E. Buck, wife of late A.F. Buck, as Principal / President of the school.

3. The landlord of the disputed premises received the rent from BPS. The rent was being continuously deposited by the school from the time of original allotment till the death of Smt. Leelawati on 29.05.1990 and nobody ever objected about the receiving of rent. The name of school finds place in assessment record of Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital, as tenant. The tenancy of said school was established with the consent of landlord before issuance of regularization of tenancy order dated 15.05.1963. The order of regularization was never challenged by any landlord in their life time and it remains unchallenged. The regularization order has not been cancelled till now.

4. Late Chandra Lal Shah and Mathura Prasad were real sons of late Parma Lal Shah @ Parma Shib Lal Shah and late Leelawati was widow of late Chandra Lal Shah and Mathura Prasad Shah had also issued rent receipts and late Leelawati received the rent from the school. The rent was enhanced from time to time. Tara Prasad claimed himself to be the adopted son of late Chandra Lal Shah and Leelawati on the basis of registered adoption deed dated 30.07.1959. Tara Prasad claimed through power of attorney holder Jagdish Lal Shah, who was the husband of rambha Shah, the sole daughter of Leelawati Shah, and filed a mutation case through his power of attorney holder. There is no detail of the immovable property in the alleged power of attorney dated 31.05.1990, through which Tara Prasad moved the mutation application being the adopted son of Chandra Lal and Leelawati in disputed property as legal heir. The original file of mutation case of Smt. Leelawati was not available and even though the mutation order was passed illegally in favour of Tara Prasad vide proposal 41 dated 21.04.1992, issued by the Nagar Palika, Nainital. Under the RTI Act, it has been informed that the file of mutation of Smt. Leelawati has lost.

5. According to the petitioner, the details of properties have not been given in the power of attorney dated 31.05.1990 but during the mutation proceedings the power of attorney holder moved an application dated 21.02.1992 mentioning some immovable properties without area and boundaries and claimed the property to be known as Sun Beam Cottage. Surprisingly, the mutation order was passed on the basis of some non-existent property because the mutation file of Smt. Leelawati was lost and there is no mention of immovable property in power of attorney dated 31.05.1990 and, therefore, the mutation order is per se illegal due to the concealment of facts by Jagdish Lal Shah with collusion of Tara Prasad Shah to grab the disputed premises. The mutation order does not confer any title on the person in whose favour it is made.

6. An application dated 18.07.2001 was moved by respondent no. 1 Smt. Beena Stephen under Section 16(1)(b) read with Section 12(4) of the U.P