- (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against orders dated 21-9-1976 and 17-7-1978 passed respectively by Respondents Nos. 2 and 1 dismissing the Petitioner's application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) for the release of a residential accommodation.
(2.) These are the relevant facts. The Petitioner is the owner and landlord of a house No. 9, Nemi Road, Dehradun. The Respondent No. 3 is the Petitioner's tenant in a portion of the said house. The Petitioner filed an application dated 28-5-1976 under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act for the release of the accommodation in the tenancy of Respondent No. 3 on the ground that he was engaged in the business of taking forests at auctions and selling forest produce at Rourkela, Orissa, from which business he retired in the year 1970. After his retirement, the Petitioner came down to Dehradun and put up with his brother Sri G. R. Anand, who was residing at Bungalow No. 64-A Lytton Road, Dehradun. Since then, the Petitioner had been staying with his brother whenever he was at Dehradun. The Petitioner has two married sons and two married daughters, who visited the Petitioner at Dehradun from time to time. The Petitioner now desires to lead a retired life at Dehradun, and, therefore, he required a residence of his own at Dehradun. He could not stay permanently with his brother Sri G. R. Anand. The tenant's family was small consisting of only six members. The tenant owns a residential house of his own at No. 18 Patel Road, Dehradun, and he could easily shift there. Hence the application for the release of the accommodation in dispute.
(3.) The above application was contested by Respondent No. 3, who asserted that the Petitioner hardly stayed at Dehradun. He had no business commitments there. He came there only on short visits. House No. 64-A Lytton Road, Dehradun was a joint family property belonging to Anand family, of which the Petitioner was a member. The Petitioner stayed permanently at Rourkela. He was actively engaged in various business activities connected with forests at Rourkela. House No. 18 Patel Road was still in occupation of some tenants against whom litigation was going on. It was, besides, in a dilapidated state, and was unfit for human habitation. The landlord's need was not genuine at all. At any rate, the landlord has recently got the remaining portion of 9, Nemi Road, vacated by its erstwhile tenants. Instead of occupying it himself, the landlord allowed a part of it to be allotted to Sri M. A. Beg. In any case, a substantial portion of the said house released in favour of the landlord is vacant and available for occupation. It consists of four main halls, a room, two big verandahs, a kitchen and a bath etc. with plenty of vacant land around it. The supposed need of the landlord is thus neither genuine nor pressing.;