Devendra Pratap Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the petitioners and but none appears for the contesting respondents despite sufficient service.
(2.) THIS petition by the landlord is directed against an appellate order dated 22nd of May 2008 by which the order of the Prescribed Authority has been set aside and the release application of the petitioners has been rejected. The petitioner landlords filed a release application No. 37 of 1984 before the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the release of the disputed accommodation for their personal need. Inter alia it was alleged by the deceased landlady that the disputed premises came within her husband's exclusive share through a family partition in 1968 wherein the husband of the respondent No. 1 was a tenant from the time the children in the family were minors but now they have become major and they required the disputed accommodation for their own need as one room and a tin shed in their accommodation in the first floor was not sufficient. During the pendency of the release application, the landlady died and so also the husband of the respondent No. 1 and the father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. However, the two sons of the landlady got married and had children whereby the strength of the landlord's family increased to 8 members including college going children. The tenants contested the said application inter alia with the allegation that the premises in occupation of the landlord was sufficient and that during pendency of the application, they have executed two sale deeds which shows that the need was not genuine and bonafide.
(3.) AFTER the parties led their respective evidence, the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application holding that the tenant was in occupation of only one room and a temporary tin shed on the first floor and it was insufficient for the residential purposes of 8 members of the landlord's family, It further went on to hold that the said two sale deeds were executed for open land and one small kutcha construction which was in the nature of store room which could not be used for residential purposes and thus, allowed the release application. The appellate court found that in one of the affidavits, it was stated that the disputed accommodation was also needed for commercial purposes, therefore, relying upon Clause (ii) of the third proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act, it held that the release application was not maintainable. It also went on to hold that since two rooms had also been sold through the aforesaid two sale deeds, which could be used for residential purposes, the need was not genuine and bonafide and dismissed the release application.;