- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of th6 Prescribed Authority dated 20-5-1982, rejecting the release application filed by he landlord petitioner and the order of the Appellate Authority dated-26- 3-1983, dis missing the appeal against the said order.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioner filed application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of ground floor portion of which. respondent No. 3 was tenant with the al legation that the landlord is living on the second floor, he is suffering from high blood pressure, hypertension with angina attacks and the doctors have advised him that he should reside on the ground floor which is under the tenancy of respondent No. 3. It was further stated that due to increase in the number of family members, the accommodation on the second floor with him is insufficient. He enumerated 12 members of his family in his application. Respondent No. 3 contested the applica tion. It was denied that the petitioner was suffering from any heart ailment. It was further contended that the accommoda tion already with the petitioner is suffi cient. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on 20-5-1982. The petitioner preferred an appeal. Respon dent No. 1 dismissed the appeal on 26-3-1983. These orders have been challenged in Ihc present writ petition. I have heard Shri S. N. Vcrma, senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajcsh Tandon, learned counsel for the contesting respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is suffering from high blood pressure, hypertension with angina attacks. The doctors advised him to live on the ground floor. The petitioner offered to the tenant that he would give the second floor which is in his occupation but both the authorities under misapprehension of law and facts rejected this offer.
(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority indicates that he relied upon the report of Dr. VK. Jain (Vijai Kumar Jain) wherein he had indi cated that the petitioner is suffering from heart ailment. Respondent No. 3 had also submitted report of Dr. VK. Jain (Vimal Kumar Jain) wherein he had indicted that the pain of respondent No. 3 appears to be muscular only. It is contended that these two doctors were entirely different and secondly there was not justification for not accepting the certificate issued by Dr. VK. Jain (Vijii Kumar Jain) who certified that the petitioner is suffering from heart ailment. The Appellate Authority has taken the view that the petitioner was working in a hotel which is situate on the first floor and, therefore, he can also reside on the second floor of the house. The mere fact that some person is working for the pur pose of his avocation will not itself indicate that he is not suffering from heart ailment. The petitioner has further filed large num ber of documents which indicate that he had heart attack or was suffering from heart ailment.;