R.R.K.Trivedi - (1.) IN this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and both the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that an application under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by respondent no 2 against the petitioner for release of the accommodation in dispute. It was stated in the application that petitioner purchased the accommodation in dispute by a sale deed dated 31-5-1983 However, he is residing in premises no. 1/76, Krishna Nagar, G. T. Road, Kanpur in which he was accommodated as a licensee by one Shri Ramesh who is pressing hard to vacate the premises as he himself is shifting from Delhi to Kanpur. It was further stated that by notice the petitioner was informed about the fact. However, in spite of the notice he is not prepared to vacate the accommodation, hence the application for release has been filed and in case it is not allowed great hardship shall be suffered by him. The release application was contested .by the petitioner by filing an objection which Is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The main objection on the part of the petitioner was that 100 sq. yard open land is lying there on which respondent no. 2 may construct a house to satisfy his need. It was further stated that he is a resourceful and rich man and may acquire any other accommodation for his residence and accommodation in dispute will not suit to his status. It was further asserted that respondent no. 2 is residing as tenant in accommodation no. 1/16 and not as licensee as alleged. It was also asserted that defendant no. 2 has no bonafide need of the accommodation in dispute but the release has been sought only for purpose of raising construction afresh for earning higher rent. After hearing both the parties the prescribed authority allowed the release application vide order dated 2-2-1989 which was challenged in Rest Appeal no. 32 of 1989. The appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority by its order dated 26-3-1991. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution .
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for parties. Learned counsel for petitioner has challenged the orders of the courts below on three grounds :- Firstly, it has been submitted that the provisions of Rule 16 (1) (d) of the Act are mandatory but they have not been complied with though the petitioner offered from the very beginning that 100 Sq. yard open land which is part of the premises may be utilised by respondent no. 2 for raising new constructions. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the open land was also a part of the building as defined under section 3 (i) of the Act and Rule 16 (1) which are mandatory, ought to have been invoked by the authorities below and the judgments ate vitiated for non-consideration of the same.;