- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17-8-985 whereby he allowed the release applica tion of the landlord-Respondent No. 3 and the order of the appellate authority dated 26-2-1988 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) BRIEFLY, stated the facts, are that Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) with the allegations that he is residing in a portion of House No. 622 Dariyabad, Al lahabad consisting of one Kothri and Dalan. His family consists of himself, his wife, four sons and three daughters. The tenant- petitioner is also occupying another portion of the same house consist ing of one Kothri and Dalan. He required the disputed accommodation bona fide for residential purposes. The petitioner contested the- ap plication. It was alleged that Respondent No. 3, is, in fact, residing in House No. 433. Dariyabad which consists of six rooms. He has also another House No. 618 which is lying vacant. He denied that Respondent No. 3 is residing in House No. 622. The Prescribed Authority had ap pointed a Commissioner to inspect the premises. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the premises and in his report made observation that Respondent No. 3 is in occupation of House No. 433 and some of the members of the family were found there. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on 27-8-1971. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the said order. The appellate authority remanded the matter on 28-2-1984 hold ing that the report of the Advocate Com missioner was ex-parte and could not be relied upon. After the remand, the Prescribed Authority allowed the applica tion on the finding that the Respondent No. 3 is residing in a portion of House No. 622 and the accommodation with him is hardly sufficient considering the members of his family. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order and the ap pellate authority has dismissed the appeal by the impugned order dated 26-2-1988. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Sri M. A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the con testing respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlord-respondent is owner and in possession of House No. 433, Dariyabad, Allahabad. There are six rooms in the said house by the Advocate Commissioner and the Respondent No. 3 was found living in the residential portion of the said house. The appellate authority, while remanding the matter on 28-2-1984, had held that the said report cannot be relied upon as it was an ex-pane without affording opportunity to Respondent No. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, did not get another commission issued. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on consideration of material evidence on record, came to the con clusion that in House No. 433, Dariyabad there were three rooms which were oc cupied by graves and in one room there was "imambara". The said house was not available for residential purposes to Respondent No. 3. This finding does not suffer from any manifest illegality.;