M.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE present petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The petitioner is a tenant of a portion of House No. 174 (New No. 125) Mohalla Anandpuri, Meerut. Accommodation in his possession comprises of two rooms and a tin shed, the rent was Rs. 50/ - per month.
(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 3, who is owner and landlord of the premises was posted as Junior Engineer in U.P. State Electricity Board at Ghaziabad at the time when he moved the application under Section 21(1)(a). It was stated in the said application that after retirement, he would like to settle at Meerut and occupy the premises in dispute. It may be mentioned here that it has come on record that opposite party No. 3 has now retired from service from Ghaziabad. It was further stated in the said application that S.K. Jain (son of the landlord) has passed his B.Com. and was going to start his business at Meerut. His brothers and cousin brothers were residing at Meerut. He had sincere desire of setting at Meerut. On account of paucity of accommodation the marriage of his son could not be performed. He had a son and two unmarried daughters. Except this accommodation he had no other accommodation at Meerut. His need was bona fide and genuine. The tenant did not require the said accommodation as he had already constructed his own house, named as Jain Kuteer in Madhuban colony, Baghpat Road, Meerut and that he, the tenant was a man of mean and was running a printing press, under the name and style of Jainendra Art Printers, Shakti Nagar, Kaisarganj, Meerut. The application for release was contested by the tenant on the ground that the applicant was not the sole owner of the building in question. The land underlying the building belonged to Jamuna Prasad Jain, brother of the applicant. Since Jamuna Prasad Jain had not been made a party in the release application the same was not maintainable. The son of the applicant was employed in Delhi Cloth Mills. He had no intention of starting his business at Meerut. The need of the applicant was not bona fide and genuine. The purpose of filing the application was only to let out the accommodation at an enhanced rate of rent. The applicant had already got possession over two rooms from other tenants. His need could be met by living in these two rooms as he was living in only two rooms at Ghaziabad. He denied that he had constructed any house of his own in Madhuban colony, Bhopal Road Meerut. He asserted that it had been constructed by Narendra Kumar and Virendra Kumar, his two sons. His sons were living separately, doing their independent business and he had nothing to do with him. It was further stated that he had no other accommodation in his possession at meerut.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority allowed the release application holding that the tenant (petitioner) had constructed a house in Madhuban colony, Meerut, and need of the landlord was bona fide. The question of cooperative hardship was also decided in favour of the landlord.;