S.P. Srirastava, J. - (1.) AFTER his retirement from the post of Principal in the Islamia Intermediate College; Saharanpur in the year 1965, the Petitioner had to continue his stay at that place as his children were receiving education there. However, when he was in a position to leave Saharanpur, he moved an application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the year 1980, seeking release of his residential house No. 139, Dondipur, Allahabad which was under the tenancy of the Respondent tenant, seeking its release on the ground that, it was bonafide required by him, as he wanted to live with his family in his house in his old age and will suffer greater hardship in comparison to the tenant in case, the accommodation is not released in his favour. It was also asserted that the sons of Petitioner were of marriageable age and their marriage was held up due to non availability of the accommodation.
(2.) THE aforesaid application was contested by the Respondent, who challenged its maintainability on the ground that the Petitioner was not the sole landlord and owner of the house in dispute and apart from him, Iftiqar Hussain, Smt. Ajja Bibi and Smt. Saira Bibi were also landlords and owners ' of the house in dispute. It was also asserted, that the contesting Respondent was not the sole tenant of the house in dispute but it was in the joint tenancy of Smt. Rahmatunnisa his mother and Mohammad Ahmad, his brother. The tenant Respondent also denied the claim of the Petitioner about the bonafide requirement of the house and further asserted that as he had got no alternative accommodation and will be thrown on the street if evicted and he will suffer greater hardship in comparison to the Petitioner in the event of grant of release. The assertions made by the tenant about the maintainability of the application for release at the instance of the Petitioner alone, were denied by the Petitioner in the affidavit, which he had filed in reply to the counter affidavit, filed by the tenant. It Was asserted by the Petitioner that Iftiqar Hussain was his brother and Sabira Bibi and Hajra alias Ajja Bibi were his sisters and all of them had transferred their share in the house in question to the Petitioner in the year 1945 and since then, it was the Petitioner alone, who was the exclusive owner/landlord of the premises in dispute and had been dealing with it in such capacity. It was also asserted that the tenant Respondent himself had clearly admitted the status of the Petitioner to be that of exclusive owner/landlord of the premise; in dispute in Misc. Case No. 127 of 1968 registered on the basis of the application filed by the tenant Respondent under section 7C of the U.P. Act No. III of 1947. It was asserted that in the aforesaid proceedings ,Inayat Rasul, the tenant Respondent had filed an affidavit admitting thereunder that the present Petitioner alone was the landlord of the accommodation in dispute and had further admitted there that premises in dispute had been let out to him only.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the release application before the Prescribed Authority, the Petitioner had filed an affidavit of Habib Khan, his brother in law who had testified that Iftiqar Husain., Smt Sabira Bibi and Hajra Bibi had transferred their interest in the house in dispute in favour of the Petitioner. He also testified that the accommodation in dispute had been let out to Inayat Rasul.;