- (1.) This is a tenant's writ petition directed against an order of eviction under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972 as modified in appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The order relates to a residential accommodation in the city of Lucknow. Originally the petitioner's father was tenant in the premises of respondent-landlord. The father of the petitioner owned two houses, one in Ashok Marg, Lucknow and another at Allahabad. Earlier proceedings initiated by the respondent for the eviction of the petitioner's father were unsuccessful, the last such proceedings being in April, 1972. Subsequently, the father of the petitioner died and the present application was filed in April, 1977. The Prescribed Authority ordered release of part of the accommodation. Against that order both parties filed appeals and the learned Additional District Judge has allowed the appeal of the landlord and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and has, thus, released the entire house in favour of the respondent. It appears from the appellate order that it was conceded before the learned Additional District Judge by the parties counsel that the nature of the accommodation was such that it could be released either as a whole or not at all that it could not be released in part. The petitioner has controverted this assertion about concession of parties counsel as recorded in the appellate judgment. No affidavit of the petitioner's counsel who argued. The appeal was, however, given and in the circumstances there would be no justification for disbelieving the recital in the judgment of the Additional District Judge.
(2.) The case of the petitioner in the written statement filed before the Prescribed Authority was that the respondent had been living in a portion of his Bhojnalaya situated near Darulsafa, Lucknow. Admittedly that Bhojhalaya was demolished by the Government during the pendency of the appeal and this fact was brought to the notice of the appellate Court. The petitioner's contention, however, was that after demolition of that Bhohnalaya the respondent had shifted to a certain house in Maha Nagar where he was living in his own right. It was not disputed before the appellate Court that the house in Maha Nagar stood in the name of one G.S. Verma who was described by the petitioner as respondent's brother but who was, according to the respondents counsel, his first cousin. The contention of the petitioner that the house has been purchased by the respondent Benami in the name of Sri G.s. Verma, was however, not supported by any evidence whatsoever and could not, therefore, be entertained.
(3.) The other contention of the petitioner was that the respondent could live in a part of his other Bhojnalaya situated in Hazraiganj. The finding of the appellate Court is that the said Bhojnalaya was owned by a firm of which respondent was a partner. Moreover, it could not be expected that the landlord will be required to live in a room in a Bhojnalaya instead of shifting to a residential house belonging to himself. Likewise the fact that the landlord has made some temporary arrangement in his brother's or cusion's house after demolition of the Darulsafa Bhojnalya, cannot imply that the landlord should not shift to his own house. He could not live in the Maha Nagar house as of right but could continue to live there only by way of sufferance of his brother or cousion.;