Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 30.5.1998 whereby the appeal has been allowed and the disputed accommodation has been released in favour of respondent No. 2. Swami Ashanand, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) against four set of tenants occupying different accommodation in the premises in question with the allegations that he wants to construct temple of Bhagwan Shivji Maharaj and Bhagwan Radha Krishnaji Maharaj and also to build a 'satsang' hall, guest house and proper accommodation for 'sadhus'.
(2.) THE petitioner and other tenants contested the case. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application holding that the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act filed by the respondent No. 2 for purposes mentioned in the application under Section 21 of the Act is not maintainable since the property was not shown to have been dedicated to deity nor was vested in any public or charitable trust and the purpose for which the property was required, does not come within the four corners of Section 21 of the Act. Respondent No. 2 filed appeal against the said order. The appellate authority has allowed the appeal by the impugned order dated 30.5.1998 holding that the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was maintainable and the need of respondent No. 2 was bona fide and genuine for the purposes mentioned in the application. This order has been assailed in the present writ petition. The application was filed in respect of four sets of tenancies. The two sets of tenants, during the pendency of the appeal, gave written consent that the accommodation in their possession may be released in favour of respondent No. 2. As regards the petitioners and one Budh Singh, the application was allowed after taking into consideration the contentions raised by them.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has assailed the findings recorded by the respondent No. 1. It is urged that the respondent No. 2 failed to prove that he bona fide requires the disputed accommodation as alleged by him. The application was filed for the purposes of the constructions. Respondent No. 2 filed a map duly sanctioned by the Haridwar Development Authority. The map indicated the nature of the constructions as follows: - - (1) 'Satsang' hall 14.48 x 3.93 sq. meters (49' x 12') with the portion where the petitioners are in occupation and adjoining them which has been vacated by another tenant. (2) Installation of an idol of Lord Krishnaji 8.56 x 3.35 sq. metres (25' x 10.5') (shown in yellow colour in the map). (3) Installation of the idol of Lord Shivji Maharaj 7.70 x 3.35 sq. meters (25' x 11.5'). (4) 'Pooja' room, a room in the area of 3.20 x 2.6 sq. meters required for performing for religious rites. (5) Store room in an area of 3 x 3 sq. meters required for the construction of a room for keeping the articles, utensils etc. of the deity. (6) 'Shringar' room in an area of the basement, which was shown in the yellow colour to be construction for Shringar room of the deity. Besides room for 'pujari'. Place for distribution of the 'prashad' of the deities.;