- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Heard Sri Yatindra Sinha, Advocate on behalf of the tenant-petitioner and Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Advocate on behalf of the landlord-respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 (being the widow and sons of original deceased- landlord Jagdish Saran Agarwal ). The parties have already exchanged rejoinder and counter-affidavits. Conse quently, this writ petition is being heard and decided finally at the admission stage.
(2.) THE accommodation in question is admittedly governed by provisions of Sec tion 21 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (called the Act' ). THE accommodation in question is the first floor of 12, Zulfiqar-ganj (Shyamganj), Bareilly, of which, ad mittedly, the petitioner was tenant. THE ground floor accommodation was in the tenancy of one Satya Prakash. Jagdish Saran Agarwal, landlord, who was employed in the Excise Depart ment, U. P. Government, filed an applica tion, initially both under Sections 21 (1) (a) and 21 (1-A) of the Act. The landlord claimed that his need was bonafide. He was to suffer more hardship than the tenant if his release application was rejected. The landlord further claimed eviction of the tenant on the ground that he retired from Government service on 30th June, 1984 and had to live at Bareilly in a tenanted accommodation, hence the case was covered under the aforesaid Section 21 (1-A) of the Act. The release application filed by the landlord was registered as P. A. Case No. 107 of 1984. It appears that the landlord also filed an application for release against another tenant on the ground floor of the accommodation of the premises and it was registered as P. A. Case No. l08ofl984. The petitioner has filed a copy of judgment and order dated 10-4-1988 passed by the Vlth Additional District Judge, Bareilly (Annexure-XII to the peti tion) which shows that the release applica tion against Satya Prakash was allowed. Rent Control Appeal No. 27 of 1988 filed by tenant (Satya Prakash) was allowed by means of the aforementioned judgment and order dated April 10,1998. Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Advocate, learned counsel for the contesting respondent informs that a writ petition was filed by the landlord in this Court and the same is pending disposal and the facts of the case culminating in the present proceedings are also it might have been stated that the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application (P. A. Case No. 107 of 1984) vide judgment and order dated February 2,1993 (Annexure- VI of the petition ). The Prescribed Authority decided the case in favour of the landlord both under Section 21 (1) (a) and Section 21 (1-A) of the Act. The tenant being ag grieved filed Rent Control Appeal No. 31 of 1993 a copy of the memorandum of appeal is Annexure-VII to the petition. During the pendency of the appeal Jagdish Saran Agarwal, landlord died and his real representatives were substituted. The tenant also incorporated Para 11-A in the memorandum of appeal contending that sons and daughter of the deceased Jagdish Saran Agarwal (landlord) had no need of the accommodation in question as they were already living in their own built houses. The memorandum of appeal clear ly indicates that the main thrust of appeal is to the effect that the case of landlord, in the fact of the instant case, did not fall under Section 21 (1-A) of the Act because of the landlord possessed another accom modation. The tenant, does not assail find ing of the appellate Court regarding an cestral property of the landlord.
(3.) COMMISSIONER's report, paper No. 61-Ga (Annexure-VIII of the petition), shows that the said COMMISSIONER Report contains description of (house No. 291, Mohalla Gangapur, Bareilly ). The said Advocate COMMISSIONER vide report dated January 10, 1986 (with reference to ap plication No. 40-B of para 5 (III) of the Advocate COMMISSIONER) found that the house built of old bricks had fallen an roof and terrace were supported on beams,' floor was Kachcha, no plaster was there on the walls and in the sketch map at place C of the room 'a there is a door. The Com missioner concluded that the house was old one and in dilapidated condition. Another Commissioner Report was obtained on 24-7-1987 (Annexure IX to the petition ). The said report indicates that the petitioner's counsel showed un willingness to the map prepared in respect to the accommodation in Mohalla Gan gapur (Annexure-5 to the writ paper books ). During pendency of the appeal, a Commissioner was again appointed and he submitted report dated 23-10-2000 (Annexure- XI to the petition ). The Com missioner submitted report regarding the houses which were in possession of two sons of the landlord, namely, Uttam Prakash and Rakesh Kumar, who were living with their own families separately and recorded that the information was gathered from Smt. Manju Agarwal wife of Uttam Prakash and Smt. Niru Agarwal wife of Rakesh Kumar Agarwal (daughter-in-law of the landlord ). This Commissioner Report indicates that two houses at Patel Nagar were in possession of the two sons of the landlord who had their own families and were living separately. In respect of the other accommodation, situate at Mohalla Madhowadi, Nai Basti (Annexure-XI to the peti tion), the Advocate Commissioner found that Smt. Gayatri Devi wife of Late Jagdish Saran Agarwal (landlord) was found in possession.;