- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the III Additional District Judge, Allahabad, affirming the said order passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the application filed by the landlord-Opposite Party No. 3 under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act for release of the premises in dispute. The premises in dispute are in the city of Allahabad admittedly owned by opposite party No. 3 and the petitioner is a tenant of the same who is employer in M/s. Triveni Structurals as an Engineer and the said premises is in his occupation. The respondent-landlord was a railway employee and after his retirement he was re-employed with M/s. Coral Club run by the officials of Northern Railway, Allahabad. As per allegation he was provided with a portion of the bungalow in which Coral Club is situate. Being in Coral Club he was told by his employer that his services, are no longer required and he has to vacate the portion in his possession. It was further averred by the landlord that although he was a bachelor but virtually he had adopted Shri R.S. Bhattacharya as his son and he was living as his family member. Thus, according to him he required the premises in dispute for his personal use which includes the family of Shri R.S. Bhattacharya.
(2.) The petitioner contested the case and pleaded that the landlord was every time interested in enhancing the rent, that is why he demanded exorbitant rent, but the petitioner refused to pay it. He also alleged that the need of the landlord was not genuine. Though the termination of employment was pleaded by the landlord, but it was denied that the landlord has been asked by Coral authorities to vacate the premises in possession of the landlord-opposite-party.
(3.) Before the Prescribed Authority evidence in the shape of affidavits was filed. Apart from filing affidavit two letters were filed by the landlord from the Secretary, Coral Club requiring him to vacate the premises in Coral Club. One letter was of the year 1974 in which the landlord was asked to make arrangement to vacate the portion of Coral Club in his occupation as the same was required for School extension, while the other letter was of the year 1977 in which the landlord was reminded that no steps for vacating the premises were made by him and he was asked to vacate the portion in his possession within fifteen days. The petitioner filed a letter to the effect that the landlord is residing in Coral Club and no proceedings were instituted against him for his eviction and in reply to the same the landlord filed letter dated 16.7.1978 written by the Secretary, Coral Club, asking him to vacate the premises of Coral Club in his possession as he has no right to stay in the same and the said portion was allotted to one. Om Prakash, a School Assistant and the landlord was threatened with coercive measures in case the premises were not vacated by him within 15 days. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence on record that the needs of the landlord were genuine and that the tenant can arrange for an alternative accommodation and according to him the landlord was to suffer great hardship than the tenant in case the application was refused, consequently the application filed by the landlord was allowed.;