Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) A short controversy is left to be decided in the present petition. The matter had come twice before this Court. The landlord's application under Section 21 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the appeal against the aforesaid order filed by the tenant was also dismissed. The tenant challenged both the orders in writ petition which too was rejected by Hon'ble R.P. Singh, J. by his order dated 10th February, 1988. With regard to the dispute relating to the identity of the alternative accommodation offered by the landlord to the tenant, it was held that the same was clearly defined by the landlord in the release application. In the second writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 20518 of 1988, it was directed by Hon'ble N.N. Mittal, J. that on the tenant's vacating the disputed premises (Shop) the tenant will be put in possession of the alternative accommodation offered by the landlord within a period of 15 days. In the present petition, again the grievance of the petitioner is that the landlord has not adhered to his commitment and the alternative accommodation which is now being offered is not the same and the eastern room of the house has been partitioned. The accommodation which is now being offered is a small room of 8' x 6 1/2'. The petitioner has alleged that the eastern room of the building in which the son of the landlord was running the flour mill was of the size of 18' x 9' while the small eastern side room of House No. 524, Malviya Nagar, Allahabad was being offered as alternative accommodation in lieu of the disputed shop, When the petitioner went to take possession in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court's Order dated 6 -1 -1989, the said room was found partitioned by raising a wall of 7 1/2' height, thus leaving a small room of 8' x 6 1/2' where the Ata Chakki was installed. The petitioner also got the accommodation inspected by the Commissioner and in the report of the Commissioner, it has been stated that a fresh wall partitioning the room has been constructed of the height of 7 1/2' which has not been plastered but has only been white -washed with yellow colour.
(2.) THE landlord denied these facts and it has been alleged that the tenant in order to retain the possession of the disputed shop is lingering on the matter. The accommodation which was described in the release application was one small room in which the Chakki is installed. The Prescribed Authority held that in the application under Section 21 of the Act, the measurements of alternative accommodation were not given and it cannot be definitely said that the landlord has erected any wall in the eastern room to partition the room and the alternative accommodation of the size of 10' x 8' is sufficient for electric repair work. The Prescribed Authority, by order dated 6 -5 -1989, directed the petitioner to avail the alternative accommodation and handover the possession of the disputed shop within 10 days. This order has been impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the averments made in the release application under Section 21 of the Act being Case No. 275 of 1982 filed as Annexure '6' to the writ petition. In paragraph 7 it has been stated: 7. That the accommodation at House No. 524, Malviya Nagar, Allahabad comprises on ground floor one room used as Baithak, one room (Shop) 12' x 12' in the tenancy of the O.P., courtyard verandah and one small room in which a Chakki is installed. Back side of the ground floor is in occupation of Manik Chand, oldest son of the applicant. In paragraph 10, it has been stated: 10. That the accommodation at the disposal of the applicant on the ground floor is one 'Baithaka' used as outer room -cum -bed room by Prem Chand. The other room used for 'Chakki' and as store room. The verandah is used as Kitchen. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the averments contained in the second releasee application in Case No. 193 of 1983 filed as Annexure '1' to the writ petition in which in paragraph 15, it has been stated: 15. That in view of aforesaid circumstances the opposite party has alternative accommodation in his own house as stated above and if he likes to do electric repairing business then he can very well do there, however, the applicant offers Nagar, Allahabad where the applicant's son started flour mill business some times, to the opposite party on the same rate of rent as paid by the opposite party to the applicant of the shop in question. The learned counsel argued that the eastern room of the building where the Ata Chakki was installed was not the small partitioned room of the size of 8' Ã - 6 -1/2' but the entire room on the eastern side as the flour mill business was being done in the entire room. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the report of the commissioner in which it has been stated that a fresh partition wall has been raised of height of 7 -1/2' which is un -plastered and which is washed by yellow colour where as the other walls of the room are plastered. The learned counsel further argued that in the report it has been stated that there are two electric hoards fitted on the eastern wall of the eastern bigger room of the size of 12' Ã - 9'. On one of the switch boards, there is a regulator of fan and electric switches but on the other board, there was no fitting. This indicates that on the other board, the name switch and electric fittings were installed to run the flour mill which have been removed. The Commissioner has also mentioned in the report that he did not find any weighing instrument and there was not sufficient place to keep the grains etc. The Commissioner also observed that the bigger room has been partitioned into two.;