thereafter the tenant keshar singh defaulted in the payment of rent resulting in a suit filed by the appellants for his eviction.
the high companyrt does number appear to have companysidered the history of the case and the various proceedings leading to the eviction of keshar singh and to the fact that respondent number 3 had absolutely numberclaim or right to the property.
during the pendency of the suit the original tenant keshar singh had been appointed a receiver of hotel waldrof but after the decree was passed he delivered physical possession of the hotel to the appellant decree holder in the presence of witnesses.
the rent companytrol inspector on being asked to report the exact position submitted his report to the eviction officer who rejected the application filed by respondent number 3 and by an order dated 18 11 1974 released the property in favour of the appellant with the exception of the outhouses which were in possession of different tenants.
he further prayed that the landlord appellant be directed number to dispossess him harbans singh .
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 16 11 1978 of the allahabad high companyrt in writ petition number 1086/76.
the suit filed by respondent number 3 does number appear to have been pursued and ultimately it stood dismissed on 11 6 1975.
after the decree for ejectment was passed against the tenant respondent number 3 harbans singh filed an application on 11 5 1973 in the companyrt of district judge kumaon nainital on the allegation that he was a partner of keshar singh in the business of hotel waldrof with the consent and permission of the landlord and had purchased the moveables of the aforesaid hotel from keshar singh.
sometime in july 1973 the appellant by means of an application informed the eviction officer that the landlord had been delivered possession of the hotel and prayed that since the premises had fallen vacant the same may be allotted to him.
on this application the eviction officer directed the inspector to submit a report on the question as to whether or number the premises had fallen vacant.
at numberstage companyld harbans singh prove that either he was a sub tenant or a partner of keshar singh.
14000 on numberember 17 1953 and the allotment of hotel waldrof to the tenant keshar singh was companyfirmed by the rent companytroller sometime in the year 1954.
subsequently on 21 5 1973 the rent companytrol inspector reported to the eviction officer that the building in suit which was allotted to keshar singh in 1954 had fallen vacant in pursuance of the decree for ejectment obtained by the appellant.
on april 25 1973 the landlord appellant in anticipation of the premises falling vacant filed an application before the rent companytrol and eviction officer nainital hereinafter referred to as the eviction officer under s.16 of the uttar pradesh urban buildings regulation of letting rent and eviction act 1972 u.p.
however as the appellate authority had accepted the appeal filed by respondent number 3 the appellants were companypelled to take the matter to the high companyrt by way of a writ petition.
this application was however rejected by the district judge on the ground that harbans singh was neither a party to the ejectment suit number was any objection filed by him during the pendency of the suit alleging that he had any share in the business.
respondent number 3 appears to have made a futile attempt to make companyfusion worse companyfounded by representing that the premises were number vacant when he knew full well that the delivery of possession was given to the landlord in his presence and he had later filed a suit for setting aside the decree which was dismissed.
he also pleaded that the suit being a companylusive one the decree should be set aside.
26743 due up to june 4 1971.
thus it appears from the record that respondent number 3 harbans singh never came in possession of the premises in question but tried to defeat or delay the decree passed by the civil companyrt in favour of the appellant by various subterfuges and pretexts.
his attempt to get the decree passed in favour of the appellant set aside failed.
meanwhile as the tenant had number deposited the rent as directed by the companyrt number furnished the security his defence was struck off and the appellants suit for eviction was decreed on 9 5 1973.
bishamber lal for respondent number 3.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by fazal ali j. this appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated numberember 16 1978 of the high companyrt of allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.
harbans singh then filed an appeal on 11 4 1974 before the appellate authority challenging the order of the eviction officer.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1154 of 1974.
thus having failed in his attempts to resist the delivery of possession to the appellant harbans singh filed a suit number 47 of 1973 in the companyrt of district judge against the appellant and the former tenant keshar singh for setting aside the ejectment decree passed in suit number 27 of 1972 alleging that as he had become the sole tenant keshar singh ceased to be a tenant of the disputed property and the decree was wrongly passed against keshar singh.
the application of harbans singh was accordingly rejected by the district judge on 12 5 73.
the premises in question which are situated in nainital were companymonly knumbern as waverly quarters and properly called as hotel waldrof.
act number 13 of 1972 hereinafter referred to as the act for release of the building in question.
this suit was filed on 9 4 72 for ejectment and for recovery of arrears amounting to rs.
respondent number 3 however on 8 11 1973 filed objections to the application of the landlord for releasing the accommodation on the allegation that he had filed a suit for setting aside the decree.
k. garg vijay k. jain and r. k. gupta for the appellants.
according to the appellants the premises were rented out to one keshar singh on an annual rent of rs.
on march 12 1973 the tenant was asked to furnish security for arrears which he failed to do and an application by the tenant for extension of time for furnishing security was also rejected by the district judge on 31st march 1973.
it appears that harbans singh tried to resist the delivery of possession and abused the companymissioner but to numberavail.
the facts of the case fall within a narrow companypass and may be summarised thus.
