Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed against the orders of the Prescribed Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority releasing the premises in question, Under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The factual matrix of the case, shorn of necessary details, is illustrated in the application Under Section 21 of the Act filed by the landlord/opposite party which states that initially the landlord had let out a piece of land to the tenant for timber purposes but, gradually, he started a diary business and made some constructions. The landlord opposite party requested the Petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises and, instead of vacating the premises, he filed a suit for temporary injunction alleging that not only a piece of land was let out to him but also a portion of the building and that he cannot be evicted forcefully except in accordance with law. The tenant submitted in that suit that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable since a portion of that building was also let out to him. This suit was decreed and, it was held that the Petitioner was a tenant of the house alongwith the land. This position was accepted by both the parties and the decree became binding not only on the tenant but also upon the landlord. Armed with this decree, the landlord filed an application for release of the premises in the year 1983 contending that he is the owner and landlord and that the Petitioner is a month to month tenant in a portion of a house consisting of two rooms and a temporarily improvised kitchen in the premises in question, at the monthly rent of Rs. 65/ - p.m. in addition to house tax and water tax. The landlord contended that he was living with his elder brother who had asked him to make his own arrangement and that the landlord is still unemployed and is unable to get married because of paucity of adequate accommodation for him and for the family after he gets married. On this ground, the landlord contended that the need was bonafide and genuine and if the premises was not released, he would suffer irreparable loss.
(2.) THE release application was resisted by the Petitioner/tenant and all possible grounds were taken, namely, that there was no bonafide need and that the landlord does not require any accommodation for his personal need and that he has other premises where he could reside and, that, in any case, being a bachelor, he had no requirement for the entire premises, in question. Upon the exchange of the affidavits, the Prescribed Authority, after considering the material evidence that was brought on the record, partly allowed the release application and released a portion of the premises, in question, and directed that the remaining portion would be retained by the tenant on which the tenant could make his own constructions where he could reside and carry on his diary business.
(3.) THE tenant as well as the landlord preferred separate appeal which was decided together. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the landlord and released the entire accommodation in favour of the landlord. The tenant's appeal was, consequently, rejected. The tenant, being aggrieved by the orders of the Prescribed Authority as well as of the Appellate Court, has now preferred the present writ petition.;