JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed, affirming the order dated 26.06.2018 of the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in P.A. Case No. 8 of 2008 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, allowing the release Application of the Respondents in respect of premises No. 118, Araghar, Dehradun.

2. The property was originally under tenancy of Sri Mahavir, predecessor of the petitioners, under landlord Surajmal. In O.S. No. 424 of 1969, Mahavir sought a permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit was dismissed on 06.06.1970, but decreed in appeal on 21.12.1970, directing demolition of constructions raised by the landlord. In Second Appeal No. 429 of 1971, the High Court modified the decree on 18.07.1980, permitting retention of construction on delivery of possession, failing which the decree of demolition would operate.

3. Execution Case No. 23 of 1987 followed, in which objections were filed by Pyare Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi, the parents of the present Respondents, are asserting tenancy rights. Pyare Lal also instituted O.S. No. 269 of 1988 challenging the decree, but his amendment Application to set up ownership was rejected in 2001, and the suit itself was dismissed on 05.03.2013.

4. Meanwhile, the Respondents, claiming rights through sale deeds dated 13.05.1985 and 23.02.1999 executed in favour of one Sharad Kumar and thereafter in their favour, instituted P.A. Case No. 8 of 2008 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, 1972, seeking release on bona fide need. The petitioners denied any landlord–tenant relationship, disputed admissibility of the sale deeds, alleged sufficiency of the Respondents’ accommodation, and pleaded that the premises were a dilapidated structure not falling within “building” as defined in Section 3(i) of the Act.

5. During proceedings, petitioners moved the Application no. 135A seeking production of original sale deeds, which was rejected on 30.03.2018, and the writ petition challenging the order was dismissed on 23.04.2018. Their Application No. 55A questioning jurisdiction was also disposed of on 24.04.2018 with a direction to consider it at the final stage. The Prescribed Authority thereafter allowed the release Application on 26.06.2018.

6. Petitioners preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 2018. During the appeal, Respondents filed affidavits setting up additional need for the sons of Respondent No. 1. Petitioners filed an objection (Application no. 86A) contending that, without amendment, such affidavits could not be considered. By order dated 07.01.2020, the Appellate Court directed that the issue be considered at final judgment. Respondents also filed an Application no. 171A under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for the production of original sale deeds, which was allowed on 06.01.2024 with a direction to consider them at the time of the decision.

7. By judgment dated 30.04.2025, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the release, while relying upon the additional need projected in affidavits without amendment of pleadings, and without adverting to the directions in its earlier orders dated 07.01.2020 and06.01.2024.

8. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the very foundation of the proceedings is unsustainable, inasmuch as there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was contended that neither any tenancy agreement was executed nor has rent ever been demanded or paid to the Respondents. In the absence of such privity of contract, the Application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972 was not maintainable.

10. I