S.D.Agarwala - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the proceedings under section 21 of the U P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.
(2.) THE premises in dispute is a portion of the first floor of house No. 5-A, Beli Road, Allahabad. Petitioner, L. M. Trivedi, is tenant of the said premises. Original landlady was Smt. Firdaus Fatima Naseer who died on 6th August, 1978. In her place now names of respondents 2 to 5 have been substituted. Parvez Nasser, Masood Naseer, and Shahid Naseer respondents 2, 3 and 4 are her sons and Smt. Shahwaz Khan respondent No. 5 is her daughter. On 11-2-1978 late Smt. Firdaus Fatima Naseer filed an application for release under section 21 of the Act. At that time, when the application was filed, landlady was Reader in the University of Allahabad. In the application for release need set up was to the effect that she required accommodation for her library. The accommodation was also required for Masood Naseer for opening an office as at the time of filing of the release application Massod Nasser was practicing was an Advocate. The further need set up was that Shahid Nasser and Masood Naseer are of marriageable age and consequently for want of accommodation their marriages were being postponed. This release application was contested by the petitioner. The need set up in the release application was emphatically denied and one further aspect was pleaded by the tenant viz. that originally the entire upper story of the house No. 5-A, Beli Road Allahabad was allotted to the petitioner, thereafter partition is alleged to have taken place between the landlady and her sister Dr. Smt. Shabbir Fatima. After partition, Dr. Smt. Shabbir Fatima moved an application under section 21 of the Act. In those proceedings a compromise was arrived at and the portion which came to the share of Smt. Shabbir Fatima was released in her favour and Smt. Shabbir Fatima took possession from the petitioner in June, 1974. The result was that the petitioner was left with very little accommodation on the first floor. Half of the accommodation was released in her favour and he gave up to the landlady Dr. Smt. Shabbir Fatima. His case is now that after he had given up a portion of his accommodation by way of compromise, filing of the present release application is a wholly malafide act on the part of the landlady and that the application has been filed only to harass the petitioner.
(3.) AFTER a new months of the filing of the release application landlady died on 6-8-1978. On 5-9-1979 an application was filed for substitution by respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in place of the landlady. This application was not supported by any affidavit and only substitution of the names was sought. In this application no need was set up on behalf of the heirs, respondents Nos. 2 to 5. The release application came up for hearing before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority by an order dated 21st October, 1981 rejected the release application. The Prescribed Authority found that the accommodation in possession of the respondents was sufficient and consequently opposite parties did not have need of the accommodation. In effect, the finding was that the respondents failed to establish bonafide need and the application was consequently rejected. Against the order dated 21st October, 1981 respondents 2, 3 and 4 filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act. The appeal was allowed by the appellate authority on 16th July, 1983. The appellate authority set aside the finding in regard to the bonafide need. Aggrieved by this decision dated 16th July, 1983 the present petition has been filed by the tenant.;