A.B.Srivastava - (1.) IMPUGNED by means of this petition is a judgment and order dated 13-12-1990 of the respondent no. 1, Vth Addl. Distt. Judge Mathura, Annexure-5 to the writ petition whereby in appeal under section 22 of the Act 13 of 1972 for short 'the Act' he allowed the application of the landlord, the respondent no. 3 under section 21 of the Act for release of accommodation.
(2.) THE respondent no. 3 filed release application impleading the Education Superintendent Municipal Board Mathura and the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari Mathura, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in this writ petition, alleging that he is the landlord of the building in question which was in the occupation of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on Rs. 100/- per month as rent. THE respondent no. 2 who was employed as Senior Labour Officer in the Central works depot retired on 31-3-1984 and was required to vacate the official residence occupied by him during his employment. He accordingly required the building in question for the occupation by himself and his family and his claim was covered by section 21 (1) (A) of the Act. THE release applications contested by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 inter alia on the grounds that petition was bad for non joinder on the basic, shiksha parishad U. P. the respondent no. 3 did not require this building for his occupotion. THE factum of his retirement was also challenged and it was further alleged that he has a house also in Allahabad city where he can reside, and that building in question being a public building is exempt from the Act. THE release application did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority Mathura against which an appeal was preferred by the respondent no. 3. THE matter was remitted by the appellate court to the Prescribed Authority to implead Basic Shiksha Parishad and decide the issues arising out of the written statement filed by the newly added opposite party to the release application. THE Parishad however, did not file any written statement and the Prescribed Authority remitted his finding to the appellate court which after hearing the parties allowed the release application. statue. Affidavits between the parties having been exchanged, hence this writ petition is being finally dispose of. THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of parties have been heard. According to both the parties the possession over the building in question has already been delivered to the respondent no. 3 in pursuance of the release order. It stands concluded by the materials on record of the release proceedings, including the admissions of the parties, that the respondent no. 3 was a Government employee who retired on 31-3-1984. His claim for the release of the building in question thus was fully covered by section 21 (1-A) in view of the fact that he was required to vacate the public building in his possession for residence during his employment. It also stands concluded from the documentary evidence produced by the respondent in the case that the house owned by him in Allahabad is also in occupation of a tenant. Apart from this it is also not open to a tenant of a building sought to be released, to resist the release application on the ground that the landlord may reside at a place of the tenant's choice, rather it is an inherent right of a landlord to choose a place where he would like to settle. The contention that the building in question is public building exempted from the application of Act has also no leg to stand. The provisions of section 2 (1) (a) of the Act as amended by U. P. Act No. 17 of 1985 w.e.f. 18-5-1983 clearly restricts exemption under the said provision to a building of which Government or a local authority or a public sector corporation is the landlord. The release application in the present case being dated 27-8-84 the amended provisions, and not the one inserted by Act 28 of 1976 was applicable to the building in question. The plea of the release application being barred by section 2 (1) (a) of the Act was rightly repelled. This view finds support also from the law laid down in State of U. P. v. Malik Sarid Khalid, AIR 1980 SC 132.
(3.) FOR all the above reasons, this writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;