Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Siddharth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nitin Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 to 7. This writ petition has been filed for quashing judgment and order dated 12.9.2006 in Misc. Appeal No. 341 of 1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Meerut and judgment and order dated 12.8.1998 in P.A. Case No. 59 of 1995 passed by Prescribed Authority/Addl. Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut.
(2.) BRIEF facts of case are that petitioner -landlord filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") before Prescribed Authority for release of ground floor of house No. 249 situate at Teli Mohalla Kabari Bazar, Meerut Cantt. under the tenancy of respondents -tenants alleging that they had been given accommodation in dispute on rent for residential purposes and it was being used by them as a godown; that house No. 247 in which landlord is living with his family has been insufficient due to increase in family; and that respondents -tenants have purchased their own house No. 415/416 in the same locality, where house in dispute is situated, hence it may be released in favour of landlord on grounds of bona fide need and comparative hardship. The respondents -tenants filed objection denying relationship of landlord and tenants asserting that accommodation in possession of landlord is sufficient for his family; that he is residing in disputed accommodation and not using it as a godown; that house No. 415/416 was purchased by his wife 40 years back by her Stridhan before Act, 1972 came into force and that aforesaid house is a two storied building having four shops on the ground floor wherein his sons are doing business and on the first floor, his two sons are living with their families and he alongwith his wife is living in disputed accommodation; that apart from aforesaid disputed house, tenant has no residential house in Kaseru Khada and Rajban Bazar; that landlord of disputed accommodation is Shanker Lal and not applicant Navin Kumar; and that need of landlord is not bona fide and release application is liable to be rejected.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority, vide order dated 12.8.1988, dismissed release application of petitioner -landlord holding that need of landlord -petitioner is not bona fide and property in the name of the wife of the tenant i.e. house No. 415/416 is excluded from consideration of exception under section 21(1)(a) of Act 1972.;