Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, in which house No. 696, Mutthiganj, Allahabad has been released in favour of landlord, respondent No. 2 by an order dated 17th March 1990. Initially release application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by an order dated 23rd August 1986 on the ground that all the landlords have not been impleaded in the release application and it is not in accordance with rule 15 of the rules framed under the Act as also the release application having been filed against a dead person without impleading his widow and other heirs is not maintainable.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the landlord filed appeal which was contested by the tenant and it was held that there was no necessity of impleading the alleged persons namely Sri Satish Kumar Agarwal, Ram Lal and Duli Chandra, as co -landlords. The release application is not defective on that ground. It was further held that Sri Bhagwan Sahai was the sole tenant and after his death his widow, his sons have been impleaded and the other heirs are not the necessary party. Only widow and son Sanjiv Kumar are living in the disputed accommodation. The other grounds raised by the tenant with regard to non maintainability of the release application having been filed not in compliance with section 21(1) Proviso it has been held that the disputed house was purchased on 14th July 1983 and the release application was filed on 12th June 1987. Six months' prior notice has been given by notice dated 18th July 1986, which is on record as paper No. 46 -B. On merits also the need of the landlord was found to be bona fide and genuine and on comparison of the need it has been held that the landlord would be put to greater hardship in case the release application is rejected.
(3.) THE present petition, in which order dated 17th March 1990 has been impugned, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised one ground, which in my opinion, has substance and should succeed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the release application the landlord respondent No. 2 has mentioned that after the purchase of the property notice dated 12th September 1986 was given. This has been stated in para '13' as also in para '5' of the release application. The tenant has specifically denied these facts in paras 18 and 23 of the written statement. Apart from it, in the writ petition also similar averments have been made in para. 7(b) but in the counter affidavit no effort was made to clarify this position. Only a copy of the notice dated 18th July 1986 was filed which was alleged to have been given for vacating the house. In my opinion, the learned District Judge has not dealt with this matter and has not considered the notice, which is stated in the release application and the notice which is on record, as paper No. 46 -B. It has also not been clearly stated that under what circumstances paper No. 46 -B was treated as the required notice when it was not pleaded in the release application. The service of the notice also can not be ascertained as nothing has been stated with regard to mode of service. The details about the postal receipt mentioned as paper No. 44 -B in the order have also not been clearly stated. In my opinion the learned Judge should have given full particulars and full details to explain as to when the landlord has claimed the date of notice as 12th September 1986, how he has treated the notice dated 18th July 1986 as valid notice to comply the requirements of section 21(1) Proviso. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is allowed. The order dated 17th March 1990 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge is quashed. The case is remanded to the Fourth Additional District Judge, for fresh decision in accordance with the observations made in the order. It is further clarified that the case may be decided expeditiously within three months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced.;