Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 10.1.1997 releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 3 and the order of the appellate authority dated 18.1.2000 affirming the said order in appeal.
(2.) Briefly, stated the facts, are that respondent No. 3 and other persons purchased the house in question by a registered sale deed on 16.3.1985. The petitioner was the tenant of three rooms on third floor and one room on the first floor of the house in question. Respondent No. 3 gave a notice on 7.4.1987 to the petitioner under the first proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) that he needs the disputed accommodation for residential purposes. All the purchasers of the property had filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act with the allegations that considering the members of the family of the respondent No. 3, the accommodation with them for residential purpose was insufficient. He stated that his family consisted of himself, his wife and two sons, one son was married and the other son was of marriageable age. This application was contested by the petitioner. He denied that the landlord bona Jide needed the disputed accommodation. He was already residing in the same premises on the third floor and first floor and taking into account the number of members, he does not require any additional accommodation. One of the pleas was that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not maintainable as the notice under the first proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was given by one of the co-landlords, namely, respondent No. 3 and unless the notice was given by all the landlords or sent on their behalf, it will be invalid under the said proviso.
(3.) The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the need of the landlord-respondent No. 3 was bona fide. It was further held that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was maintainable even if it was given by one of the co-landlords and secondly during the pendency of the case on a suit being filed in the civil court, respondent No. 3 was declared as sole owner of the property in question. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal has been dismissed by the respondent No. 1 on 18.1.2000. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.;