G.P. Mathur, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged by the parties and the petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage in accordance with the Rules of the Court. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 10 -3 -1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority and 21 -11 -1990 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Allahabad in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which house bearing No. 11 Sahrara Bagh, Allahabad has been released in favour of the landlord.
(2.) SRI Satya Prakash Respondent No. 3 filed a release application for release of the accommodation bearing No. 11 Sahrara Bagh, Allahabad which was under the tenancy of the petitioner Shri G.D. Das. This application was registered as P.A. Case No. 13 of 1987. The petitioner contested the release application on various grounds and one of the plea raised was that Respondent No. 3 alone was not competent to file the release application. The Prescribed Authority held that the release application filed by Shri Satya Prakash alone was not maintainable. It was further held that in case, the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was jointly filed by Shri Satya Prakash and his mother, the same would be maintainable, The release application was accordingly dismissed on 31 -7 -1987. After dismissal of the release application, a second application was jointly filed by Sri Satya Prakash Respondent No. 3 and his mother Smt. Sumitra Devi on the ground inter alia that the disputed accommodation was purchased by late Shri Sardari Lal who had executed a will by which the house was bequeathed to Respondent No. 3 and that the petitioner was in occupation of the building on rent of Rs. 15/ - per month; that the family of Respondent No. 3 cinalated of himself, his wife three sons and two daughters; that the eldest son Ajay Kumar was 23 years of age and was employed in the Central Bank; that the marriage of Ajay Kumar was to take place shortly, but there was no proper accommodation for him; that two other sons of Respondent No. 3 were students of B.A. and Intermediate classes and they also required independent accommodation; that the married daughters of Respondent No. 3 occasionally visited their parental home with their children; that Respondent No. 3 was residing in house No. 79 Hewett Road, Allahabad for which he was paying Rs. 40/ - per month as rent; that the accommodation in which Respondent No. 3 was residing was wholly insufficient looking to the need of his family. The disputed accommodation was very old and after the same was released, they will get it repaired and occupy the same. The case of Respondent No. 3 further was that the family of the petitioner consisted to his wife and two sons, one of whom namely Mohit Kumar was employed in I.T.I., Naini, Allahabad and was getting salary of Rs. 2000/ - per month besides other allowances; that Mohit Kumar had built house No. 156 in Ambedkar Nagar Colony, Naini, Allahabad; that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine, and it was greater and more pressing than the need, if any, of the petitioner.
(3.) THE release application was contested by the petitioner G.D. Das on the ground inter alia that late Sri Sardari Lal had not executed any will as alleged and the disputed house had been inherited by his wife, two sons and three daughters, after his death which took place in August 1962; that the disputed house was mostly Kuccha and made of Khaprail; that even after the marriage of son of Respondent No. 3, the accommodation in his occupation at Hewett Road, Allahabad would be sufficient; that the family of the petitioner consisted of his wife, one son Shanker Das and two unmarried daughters namely Km. Anita Das and Km. Sunita Das, Mohit Kumar Das who is the eldest son of the petitioner, was not a member of his family but was living separately for more that 10 years. It was further pleaded that the need of the Respondent No. 3 was not bona fide and that at any rate, the need of the petitioner was greater and more pressing than the need if any, of Respondent No. 3.;