S.S. Ahmad, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a tenant of opposite party No. 3 in respect of house No. 80, New Ganeshganj, Lucknow. Opposite party No. 3 who himself lives in a tenanted accommodation, filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P.: Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner for release of the accommodation in question in his favour on the ground, inter alia, that the accommodation at his disposal for his family which consisted of self, his wife, three daughters and a son. It was also stated that the accommodation in dispute which consisted of 5 rooms, 2 kothris, kitchen courtyard open roof and 2 verandahs was in occupation of the petitioner, who had also allowed his brother and his family to occupy the said accommodation which was indicative of the fact that the extent of accommodation at the disposal of the petitioner was more than what was required by him. It may be stated that there was previous litigation between the parties which had arisen out of a suit filed by opposite party No. 3 against the petitioner for his eviction on the ground that the petitioner had denied his title. This suit which was for the eviction of the petitioner from the accommodation in question was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial court was upheld by the appellate court as also by this court in Second Appeal No. 352 of 1970 decided on 27 -10 -1972. It was stated by opposite party No. 3 in para 12 of his release application as under: 12. That in the previous proceedings, the opposite party No. 1 raised an objection to the effect that a passage and pipe of the disputed house are common with the ownership of opposite party No. 2, who should have been made a party. Hence the applicant has made opposite party No. 2 also as a party in this case to avoid any multiplicity of case.
(2.) IT was on account of the objection raised by the petitioner that Smt. Dayamayi was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in the release application. The application was contested by the petitioner on a number of grounds including the ground that Smt. Dayamayi was co -owner and since she had not signed the application, it was not maintainable. This objection was overruled by the Prescribed Authority as also by the Addl. District Judge and, in my opinion, the findings in that regard are not assailable.
(3.) THE petitioner has raised a plea in his affidavit dated 8 -2 -1974 filed before the Prescribed Authority that opposite party No. 3 owned several houses situate at Arya Nagar and Paandariba, Lucknow. He also pleaded that only first floor of the accommodation in question was habitable and the accommodation on the ground floor had become damp and was not in a habitable state.;