Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 29 -1 -1988 remanding the case to the Prescribed Authority. The facts in nutshell are that the landlord Sled an application for release of the ground floor of House No. D -2/192 Pandy Haveli, Varanasi and brought on record necessary material to establish the bona fide need. The tenant contested the petition and it was alleged that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and the tenant would be put to greater hardship. It has further been alleged that the petitioner's father was tenant of the ground floor and after his death, the tenancy devolved on the petitioner as also his other brothers who became tenants in common. The other co -tenants have not been impleaded as party and their need has also not been considered.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority by order dated 11 -11 -1985 rejected the release application on the ground that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have already got an accommodation which is sufficient and their need is not bona fide. It was further held that the tenant has not been able to prove that his father was the original tenant and after his death, the tenancy devolved on all his sons. The landlord aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord moved an application for amendment that his parents who are living with him are old and on account of their old age and ailment the need for ground floor accommodation is a necessity. The appellate authority, in view of the aforesaid amendment, allowed the appeal and remanded the case for trial to the Prescribed Authority.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is no doubt correct that in case the amendment with regard to the fact that the father and mother of the landlord are old and the residential accommodation of the ground floor is needed is allowed, the learned Judge has not committed any error is remanding the case. In my opinion, in the circumstances, the learned VIIth Additional District Judge was justified in remanding the case for decision by the Prescribed Authority after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and a fresh decision on merits. The learned counsel for the respondents also contended that in case the matter is going to be decided afresh, he should also be permitted to reagitate the issue with regard to the tenancy being in favour of his father and after his death the same has devolved on all his heirs. It was argued that since the learned Judge has not set aside all the findings before remanding the case, it is necessary that suitable direction be issued for the consideration of this issue as well. I see no difficulty in accepting the prayer of the learned counsel for the respondent. Since the case is going to be redecided afresh on merits by the Prescribed Authority, the entire controversy may be decided afresh after giving fair opportunity to both the parties. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the observations made above. Since the matter is pending since 1987 for the release of the accommodation, it is necessary that the matter be decided as expeditiously as possible. The learned Prescribed Authority is directed to decide this matter within 3 months, on production of a certified copy of this order.;