K. C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Meerut, dated April 27. 1983, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 24-C of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
(2.) S. P. Jain, respondent 3, is the owner and landlord of house no. 217-218, Machchli Bazar, Sadar, Meerut Cantonment, the first floor of which is in the tenancy of the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs. 60/. Respondent 3 was posted as Superintendent, Military Farm Meerut Cantonment. In that capacity, he was alloted Gevernment Quarter No. 47, belonging to the Union of India. On November 8, 1979, he was given a "Vacation of Government Quarter" notice by the Deputy Assistant Director, intimating that since respondent 3 had his own house at Meerut Cantonment, he was directed to vacate the Government quarter no. 47, allotted to him by the order dated August 8, 1979. The notice required respondent 3 to vacate the same as early as possible as the sams was required for providing family accommodation to other essential staff of the Farm. On receiving the said order, the respondent 3 applied to the Additional District Magistrate (E), who had the delegated authority under Section 24-C of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 for recovery of possession of the first floor portion of the aforesaid house, which was in the tenancy of the petitioner. Respondent 3 alleged that as he had been required by the Government order aforesaid to vacate the premises due to himself owning a house and he was required to hand over its possession at an early date, the order for release of the first floor in possession of the petitioner be made in favour of respondent 3. Respondent 3 alleged that his family consisted of himself, his wife and two sons, who were although married but as they were posted on non-family stations the filed area, they were required to keep their families generally with respondent 3. He also claimed that apart from the two sons, he had a married daughter whose husband was posted in Goa. His son-in-law was shortly going to Iraq for two years and, as such, the daughter of respondent 3 would also come to live with him. Respondent 3 claimed that the accommodation on the ground floor of house 217-218, Machchli Bazar, Sadar, Meerut Cantonment, which was in his possession, consisted of only two small rooms and one store and boxroom and, as such, was totally insufficient to accommodate him. The application was contested by the petitioner on a number of grounds, including that the accommodation in possession of respondent 3 was sufficient to accommodate his family members.
(3.) BY the order dated 17-8-1981, the application of respondent 3 was allowed by the delegated authority against which a revision was filed by the petitioner under sub-section (7) of Section 24-C of the Act to the District Judge, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Meerut, on 27th April, 1983. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant has filed the present writ. By means of an amendment made by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976, the U. P. Legislature added Chapter IV-A in the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. This Chapter provides for "summary trial of certain applications." This was enacted on the lines of Chapter III-A of the Delhi Rent Act. The object of adding Chapter IV-A finds mention in the Preamble of U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 itself. It reads as under ;- "IF A government servant is asked to live in the house of his own after vacating the house under his tenancy then in order to get his own house vacated early, the procedure for its vacation is being adopted on the lines of the Delhi Rent Act." ;