Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) RAM Babu Agrawal sole respondent/landlord in both the writ petition filed an application for release under section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against six tenants including petitioners in both the writ petitions. The two petitioners in first writ petition were opposite parties No. 5 and 6 and the sole petitioner in second writ petition was opposite party No. 4 in release application. The release application was registered as P.A. Case No 11 of 1999 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Court No. 4 Mathura. The release application against the petitioners in both the writ petitions was dismissed and regarding other opposite parties in release application i.e. opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 the release application was decided in terms of compromise. Landlord respondent R.B. Agrawal filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act against the judgment and order passed by prescribed authority impleading in the appeal only the petitioners of both the writ petitions as respondent. The appeal was allowed hence this writ petition by tenants. The three tenanted accommodations in occupation of opposite parties in release application are part of a big house which was purchased by the landlord, some portion of the said house is in possession of the landlord. It was stated in the release application that the house in dispute was purchased by landlord for his personal use and it was about 100 years old and was in dilapidated condition and required new construction after demolition; that three different portions of the house purchased by the landlord were in tenancy occupation of three different tenants i.e. opposite parties No. 1 to 3, opposite party No. 4 and opposite parties No. 5 and 6 since the time of their ancestors. It was also stated in para 2 of the release application that the landlord required the entire accommodation after demolition and reconstruction. However, in para 15 of the release application it was stated that against the opposite party No. 4 (i.e. Smt. Shakuntla Devi petitioner of second writ petition) relief only under section 21(1)(b) of the Act was being sought and it was stated in the said para that after reconstruction landlord would comply with the provisions of section 24 of the Act i.e. he would give newly constructed portion to her. In para 16 of the release application it was stated that all the three portions were adjacent to each other and were parts of the same building and the portion in occupation of the landlord was also adjacent and it was necessary to demolish the entire building for the purpose of new construction. In paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 21 and 24 the ground of bona fide need of landlord was stated.
(2.) IN the written statements of petitioners it was stated that major portion of the building was in possession of the landlord which was lying vacant and out of five shops on the ground floor 4 had recently been sold by the landlord. In the affidavit of petitioner No. 2 of the first writ petition Shyam Babu, it was stated that entire property was mainly constructed of old thick stones and it was quite strong and there was no likely hood of its falling down and that very small portion of the building was constructed of Choona which was fully in tact. Prescribed authority under issue point No. 1 categorically held that the accommodation in dispute was not in dilapidated condition. On behalf of the landlord report of Sri O.P. Agrawal Engineer was filed alongwith an affidavit of the said Engineer in support of his report. The prescribed authority in paragraph 11 of its judgment discussed the said report in detail and found the same to be not satisfactory on various grounds. In para 12 of its judgment prescribed authority discussed the report of Sri R.P. Seth retired Executive Engineer, filed on behalf of the tenants in which it was stated that the building was not in dilapidated condition and was in quite sound position. The prescribed authority in para 13 of its judgment discussed the Commissioner's report and the photographs of the building in dispute filed by the both the parties. In para 17 of its judgment prescribed authority found that Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act had been complied with however, the landlord had failed to prove that the building was in dilapidated condition.
(3.) UNDER issue/point No. 3 the prescribed authority found that the need of the landlord for additional accommodation was not bona fide and in any case accommodation in possession of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 in release application became available to the landlord during the pendency of the release application as opposite parties No. 1 to 3 vacated the same. Prescribed authority held that even according to the statement of the landlord himself he had eight rooms in his possession alongwith other amenities and his family consisted of only himself and his wife. In para 20 under issue/point No. 4 prescribed authority held that in case of eviction the tenants would suffer greater hardship.;