R.K. Gulati, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The dispute relates to house No. 36/53 Gilis Bazar, Kanpur, One Smt. Sonkali was the landlady of the house in question, who died during the pendency of the appellate proceedings. At the instance of the petitioner her legal heirs/representatives, a son and a daughter were brought on record and they have also been arrayed in this petition, as respondents No. 3 and 4, respectively. The petitioner is a tenant on the ground floor of the disputed house. The accommodation in his possession consists of two rooms. He has a family of seven members. An application under Section 21(i)(a) of the Act for release of the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner was filed by the landlady Smt. Sonkali (since deceased), as she required the same for her personal need and for the needs of her son and daughter aforesaid. The release application was contested by the petitioner. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. On consideration of the evidence and other material brought on record, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application on a finding that the need of the landlady was bona fide and comperative hardship of the landlady was more than that of the tenant -petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority which was also dismissed in due course. Being still aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Prescribed and Appellate Authorities.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It was argued for the petitioner that the respondents No. 3 and 4 i.e. legal heirs/representatives of late Srat. Sonkali have no interest or title in the disputed property, therefore, the disputed accommodation could not have been released in their favour. This argument is based on a consideration of a "Will", a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure -6 to the writ petition. It may be observed that Smt. Sonkali had acquired property under the said "Will", executed in her favour by one Shri Mood Chand who was the owner of the property. It may also be stated that before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner did not challenge the ownership or title of the respondents No. 3 and 4. This issue has been raised for the first time in these proceedings. As the question canvassed goes to the root of the matter, and depends on the construction of the 'Will' without requiring any investigation of further facts, learned Counsel for the parties were required to address their respective arguments on the merits of the question raised; and the arguments were accordingly heard.
(3.) ON a fair reading of the relevant clause of the "Will" relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, it does not support the case taken up by him. The recitals in the 'Will' say that the disputed property will first go to Smt. Sonkali and in her absence to Bhola Nath and thereafter, if there is no issue living either of Sonkali or of Bhola Nath, then the sons and daughters of the executor shall inherit the disputed house. It is admitted to the petitioner that Bhola Nath and predeceased Smt. Sonkali. There is also no dispute that respondents No. 3 and 4 are the sons and daughter of Smt. Sonkali. In this view of the matter, it cannot be held that the respondents No. 3 and 4 have no title or interest in the disputed house and are not the proper person to pursue the application for release of the disputed accommodation in their favour, having regard to sub -section (7) of Section 21 of the Act. The first submission is accordingly rejected.;