JUDGMENT R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. Petitioner by means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 12.4.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority dismissing the release application of the petitioner in exercise of powers under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (For short the Act) and order dated 27.7.1985 passed by the appellate authority under the Act dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties 1 and 2 to proceed and decide the release application of the petitioner on merit has also been made.
2. It appears that petitioner who happens to be the landlady of shop No. 1/10, Chowk Ghantaghar. Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute) filed an application for release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act against respondent No. 3 who is the tenant in the shop in dispute.
3. In brief it was pleaded by the petitioner that shop in dispute was purchased by her through registered sale-deed dated 17.5.1978 from Raja Ajit Pratap Singh. Since the shop in dispute was needed for residential and business purposes by the petitioner, therefore, after serving a notice and on expiry of statutory period, application for release of shop in dispute was filed before the Prescribed Authority. Respondent No. 3 opposed and contested the release application, pleading that sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner was invalid as the shop in dispute was a part of Raja Pratap Bahadur Charitable Trust and was situated on Nazul land and, therefore, Raja Ajit Pratap Singh who became the Manager of the said Trust had no right to transfer of the shop in dispute in favour of the petitioner. It was pleaded that shop in dispute was let out by Raja Pratap Bahadur Singh to Shri Mahadeo Prasad, the father of the respondent No. 3. Raja Ajit Pratap Singh used to realise the rent and between the parties there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant. It was also pleaded that the need of the petitioner for the shop in dispute was not bona fide and genuine.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Prescribed Authority instead of framing the issues which were necessary for correct decision of the release application, framed only two issues, one regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the other regarding its competency to decide a complicated question of title.
5. While dealing with aforesaid questions, it was held that the Prescribed Authority in exercise of powers under Section 21 had no jurisdiction to decide complicated question of title. According to the Prescribed Authority in the instant case, complicated question of title was Involved which was required to be decided by a competent civil court. After recording the said finding, the Prescribed Authority dismissed the release application by its judgment and order dated 12.4.1983. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Prescribed Authority, petitioner preferred an appeal, the appellate authority also affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal. Petitioner, as stated above, challenged the validity of the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and of the appellate authority, by means of this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the authorities below inspite of the fact that specific Issues were framed on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did not record any finding and misguided themselves to hold that in the case complicated question of title was involved. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 did not claim title over the shop in dispute, he has only made an attempt to set up title in Pratap Bahadur Charitable Trust. It was urged that Raja Ajit Pratap Singh.
the Manager of the said Trust having admitted title of the petitioner over the shop in dispute, therefore, there was no question of title at all involved in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, even if, incidentally question of title was in any manner found to be involved in the case, it could be decided by the authorities below. The authorities below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by not deciding the said question. It was also urged for purposes of decision of an application under Section 21 of the Act, the question of title was wholly irrelevant and that tenant had no right to deny the title of the landlord. Denial of title, results in forfeiture of the tenancy rights which is one of the grounds for ejectment of the lenant from the building in his occupation, under Section 20 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No, 3 supported the validity of the orders of the authorities below. It was urged that the shop in dispute was owned by the Trust and the same was let out to Sri Mahadev, father of respondent No. 3. Raja AJit Pratap Singh who happened to be the Manager of the Trust and he also used to realise the rent, therefore, he had no right to execute the sale-deed and the sale-deed executed by him invalid and illegal. It was also urged that in the case complicated question of title was invalid, therefore, authorities below were not competent to decide the same. The petitioner was, therefore, rightly directed to get her title decided by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for parties and carefully perused the record of the case.
9. It is evident from the material on record that the sale-deed dated 27.5.1978 was executed by Ajai Pratap Slngh who admittedly used to realise rent from respondent. It was also not disputed by respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 himself did not claim title over the shop in dispute. Raja Ajit Pratap Slngh admitted the title of the petitioner over the shop in dispute by filing an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority to that effect, that shop in dispute was sold by him in favour of petitioner. Thus, in my opinion, no question of title was at all involved in the present case. The petitioner became the owner/landlady of the shop in dispute by operation of law and she was thus legally entitled to make an application for release of the shop in dispute in her favour. If any interest of the aforesaid Trust was involved in the building in question, it could agitate the same, but not the respondent No, 3.
10. It may be also noted that under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) or in the Rules framed under the aforesaid section, there is no provision of return of release application and neither the Prescribed Authority nor the appellate authority can ask the landlord to get his title decided from the court of competent jurisdiction. Actually, question of title is irrelevant for the purposes of proceedings under Section 21 of the Act, Even in the cases filed on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant before the Judge, Small Causes Court, where the provisions of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act are applicable, it has been ruled by the Apex Court of the Country that--if in the suit question of title is involved, returning of plaint was not obligatory on Small Causes Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, the authorities below have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them, therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed.
11. This writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The orders dated 27.7,95 and 12.4.1995 passed by respondent Nos. I and 2 respectively are hereby quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the release application afresh in the light of observations made in the judgment. Since the release appllcation was filed in the year 1981, it is desired that the same shall be disposed of expeditiously preferably within two months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before respondent No. 2 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and in accordance with law.