Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of Third Additional District Judge, Moradabad dated 13th July, 1990, releasing ground floor of the accommodation situate at Moradabad Railway Station road near Arya Samaj, under the provisions of Section 21(1 -A) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The respondent No. 2 claimed to be exclusive owner of the building and prayed for its release as he was going to retire on 30th June, 1989. The petitioner was in Railway service as a doctor posted at Railway hospital Najibabad, district Bijnor. The petitioner wanted the release of the accommodation as he wanted to settle in the medical practice at Moradabad as also for the residential purposes for his own self and his family consisting of his wife, one daughter aged about 23 years and son aged about 19 years.
(2.) THE tenant contested the application on the ground that the disputed accommodation is owned by respondent No. 2 and his brother Narendra Kumar. The respondent No. 2 has also a joint family house at Dhampur, Bijnor, which is available and suitable for his requirement after retirement. The Prescribed authority rejected the application on the ground that the date of retirement has not been proved but even if it is treated to be in the year 1989 the respondent No. 2 does not have bona fide need for the disputed accommodation as he has got an ancestral house at Dhampur, part of which is lying vacant. The learned Prescribed authority was also of the view that the respondent No. 2 could settle his medical practice at Dhampur as well as it would be more convenient to settle at ancestral house. Thus the need of the landlord have not been found to be bona fide and genuine and the release application was rejected by an order dated 8th February, 1989.
(3.) LEARNED Third Additional District Judge, Moradabad has allowed the appeal of respondent No. 2, holding that the provisions of Section 21(1 -A) of the Act are attracted in as much as the landlord after retirement has to vacate the building in his occupation for the residential purposes and the disputed accommodation is the only accommodation available. The learned Judge held that since the respondent No. 2's need the disputed accommodation both for residential purposes and for settling in medical profession at Moradabad, and the ancestral house at Dhampur district Bijnor can not be treated as an alternative accommodation available to him. One more accommodation at Moradabad, which is owned by his brother Sri Narendra Nath Agarwal, and which was taken temporarily for residential purposes and to set up a Clinic, it was held that since this property belongs to his brother and is wholly insufficient for the requirement of respondent No. 2, the same can not be considered a accommodation which could be occupied by respondent No. 2 in his own rights independently, More over some temporary arrangement has been made by putting a Tin shed etc. as Stop gap arrangement which indicates temporary arrangement made by him till the disputed accommodation is not made available.;