- (1.) The dispute in both these writ petitions relates to accommodation, Old No.400 and New No.406, Shahpeer Gate, Meerut. In the writ petition No.12067 of 1990 the decision in Prescribed Authority Case No.228 of 1986 Nanhey Khan v. Dr. R. A. Qureshi dated 1-4-1989 directing ejectment of the petitioner, substantially confirmed by the X Additional District Judge, Meerut in Misc. Appeal No.136 of 1989 and No.140 of 1989 vide order dated 5/04/1990 has been challenged. In the writ petition No.23246 of 1990 the order of the trial Court issuing Parwana dated 3-9-1990 for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute has been challenged. Both these petitions are being disposed of through this common order.
(2.) The respondents Nos.3 to 6 of the writ petition No.12067 of 1990 are the landlords of the disputed premises. They moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter called as the Act) before the Prescribed Authority for releasing the aforesaid accommodation on the ground of their bona fide need alleging that they had purchased the same on 13-6-1979 and had served the tenant with a notice through Registered Post which was refused by the tenant and the tenant therefore was liable to ejectment. The ground that the disputed accommodation was in dilapidated condition as it was an old construction and it required demolition, was also taken by the landlords. The tenant-petitioner in both these writ petitions claimed that the need of the landlord was not genuine; that the notice dated 21-5-1986 under Section 21 of the Act was never served or refused by the tenant and the tenant did not have any alternative accommodation and he had acquired goodwill in the disputed accommodation which was used as a Clinic and the Release Application should have been dismissed.
(3.) The Prescribed Authority after considering submission of the parties and after discussing the evidence on record directed the ejectment of the petitioner from the entire accommodation except one room. Both the parties namely the landlords and the tenant filed Misc. Appeals Nos.140 of 1989 and No.136 of 1989 respectivley and the Xth Additional District Judge, Meerut allowed the appeal of the landlords and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-tenant and directed ejectment of the tenant from the entire premises. The present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed against the aforesaid orders as well as against the Parwana issued by the Court for eviction of the tenant.;