A.N.Verma, J. - (1.) This petition by a tenant is directed against an order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 24-1-1980 allowing an appeal of the landlord, the respondent No. 3, under section 22 read with 21(2)(a) of U. P. Act No, 13 of 1972 and directing the eviction of the petitioner from a portion of house No. 6 (old)/8(New) Hastings Road, Allahabad.
(2.) These are the relevant facts : One Smt. Binapani Mittra was the owner and landlady of the aforesaid house. The petitioner has been in occupation of the southern portion of that house while the northern portion thereof has been in occupation of the owners and landlords. On 9-4-1974 Smt. Binapani Mittra filed the aforesaid application giving rise to this petition on the assertion that the portion in her occupation was not adequate for the needs of her family which then consisted of herself, an insane son, a widowed daughter, a daughter-in-law, two grand-daughters, and that therefore, she bona fide needed the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner for the residence of her family. While the application was pending, Smt. Binapani Mittra died. The present owner and landlord Gopal Chandra Mitra was thereupon substituted on the record of the case as the son and heir of Smt. Binapai Mitra. After his substitution Gopal Chandra Mitra got the application amended and he set up his own need. It was alleged that Gopal Chandra Mitra himself intended to reside at Allahabad in the house in question along with this two sons, wife and a daughter in addition to his insane brother. It was said that Gopal Chandra Mitra was planning to establish a factory at Ghaziabad with a branch at Allahabad. His elder-son who was then temporarily employed in Maharashtra had decided to come to Allahabad permanently after Gopal Chandra Mitra had set up the factory and join his father in the said business. The other son of Gopal Chandra Mitra was completing his studies for his degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Institute of Technology at Varanasi and that he too had decided to reside at Allahabad with the family. It was said that the accommodation at present at the disposal of Gopal Chandra Mitra was entirely inadequate for his needs and those of his family.
(3.) The application was contested by the petitioner after the death of Binapani Mitra, and after Gopal Chandra Mitra had been substituted, the petitioner filed an additional written statement. The substance of the case of the petitioner was that he was not a tenant of the premises. He was there in his own right. Smt. Binapani Mitra had entered into a written agreement on 10-1-1974 under which she agreed to transfer by sale the accommodation in dispute for a consideration of Rs. 65,000/-, out of which she had already accepted Rs. 35,000/- towards part consideration and the remaining Rs. 30,000, was to have been paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. Under the said agreement the petitioner was to have become full owner of the accommodation after four months of the execution of the agreement. The application of the landlady was, therefore, not bona fide at all. They (the landlord and his family) had sufficient accommodation already at their disposal even if it be assumed that Gopal Chandra Mitra and his two sons genuinely desired to settle down at Allahabad. It was however denied that Gopal Chandra Mitra had any plan to settle down at Allahabad. The same thing was said about the two sons of Gopal Chandra Mitra also. As for himself the petitioner asserted that he would suffer irreparable loss if he was evicted. He was practicing as an Advocate of the Allahahad High Court. He had three sons and three daughters, besides his wife and some other relations and that there was no other suitable alternative accommodation where he might shit his family.;