Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Ors. vs IInd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),Bulandshahr & Ors.

S.P. Mehrotra, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, challenging the order dated 1311 2002 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) passed by the learned IInd Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Bulandshahr, (Respondent No. 1).

The dispute relates to a shop bearing No. 325 situated in Ansari Road Bazar, Bulandshahr. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as �the disputed shop�.

From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short �the Act�) in respect of the disputed shop against Pyare Lal predecessorininterest of the petitioner and the proforma respondent Nos. 4 to 9.

The said release application was registered as Release Case No. 32 of 1996.

It further appears that the said Pyare Lal filed objections in the said Case No. 32 of 1996, inter alia, alleging that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not the owners and landlords of the disputed shop and that the real owner was one Smt. Gyatri Devi, who was successorininterest of Kedar Dutt. Copy of the said objections has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

It is, inter alia further alleged in the writ petition that during the pendency of the aforesaid release proceedings, Smt. Gyatri Devi sold the disputed shop through her power of attorney holder Atul to Smt. Raj Kumari by a registered sale deed dated 221 1997.

It is, inter alia further alleged in the writ petition that the said Raj Kumari sold the disputed shop to Ashok Kumar Singhal and Varun Singhal by means of two separate sale deeds on 1381999 and 2081999, respectively.

It is, inter alia, further alleged in the writ petition that as the business was running into losses, Pyare Lal stopped the business and vacated the disputed shop which was intimated to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.

It is, inter alia further alleged in the writ petition that by the order dated 2132002, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahr declared vacancy in respect of the disputed shop. Copy of the said order dated 2132002 has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

It is, inter alia further alleged in the writ petition that the said Ashok Kumar Singhal and Varun Singhal moved an application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. Thereupon, by the order dated 54 2002, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahr released the disputed shop in favour of the said Ashok Kumar Singhal and Varun Singhal. Copy of the said order dated 542002 has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.

It is, inter alia, further alleged in the writ petition that the said Pyare Lal died on 942002.

From the allegations made in the writ petition, it further appears that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Revision under Section 18 of the Act against the said order dated 542002 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahr releasing the disputed shop in favour of the said Ashok Kumar Singhal and Varun Singhal. Copy of the Memorandum of Revision of the said Revision has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition.

It further appears from the allegations made in the writ petition that after the death of the said Pyare Lal, the petitioner and the proforma respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were substituted as his heirs and legal representatives in the said Release Case No. 32 of 1996 as well as in the said Revision filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the said order dated 542002 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahr.

It further appears from the allegations made in the writ petition that the petitioner moved an application dated 16102002 (Paper No. 196B) in the said Release Case No. 32 of 1996, inter alia praying that the said Release Case No. 32 of 1996 be dismissed in view of the said release order dated 542002 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahr under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. Copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition.

It further appears that objections were filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the said application (Paper No. 196B) filed on behalf of the petitioners. Copy of the said objections has been filed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition.

Thereafter, the learned IInd Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Bulandshahr passed the impugned order dated 13112002, inter alia, rejecting the said application No. 196B filed on behalf of the petitioners. Copy of the said order dated 13112002 has been filed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.

Thereupon, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

I have heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 13112002 shows that the learned IInd Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Bulandshahr observed that the evidence in the said Release Case No. 32 of 1996 had already been filed and the case was to be fixed for arguments and in the circumstances, the said release application (Release Case No. 32 of 1996) could not be dismissed at this stage on the ground mentioned in the said application No. 196B. It was further observed in the impugned order dated 13112002 that the contentions sought to be raised by the petitioners, could be raised at the time of final hearing, and therefore, the said application No. 196B was not maintainable at this stage.

Thus, it is evident that the impugned order dated 13112002 has permitted the petitioners to raise at the time of arguments, the pleas sought to be raised in the said application No. 196B.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned order dated 13 112002 by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.