Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 7-5-1990 releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondents under section 21 (1-A) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 12th January, 1993 passed by respondent no. 1 affirming the order of the Prescribed Authority in appeal.
(2.) RESPONDENTS nos 3 to 8 are landlords of House No. 1/2, R. A. Bazar, Cantt. Bareilly. The petitioner is tenant of a part of the said house consisting of two rooms and bath, kitchen etc RESPONDENTS no. 3 to 6 filed an application for release of this accommodation against the petitioner under section 21 (1-A) of the Act on the allegation that Mohammad Yasin, respondent no. 6, was In Government service. He was employed in the department of Navy, Central Government, and his last posting was in Bombay where he retired on January 30, 1978, During the. course of employment he was provided with Government accommodation for residential purpose. He was residing in public building at Block No. 1/6, Naval Navin Nagar, Colaba, Bombay which he had vacated on his retirement from the employment. He requested the petitioner to vacate the disputed premises for residential purpose of the family of respondent no. 6 but the petitioner had been avoiding to vacate the disputed accommodation on one pretext or the other. He does not own any other house for residential purpose of his family. The petitioner contested the application denying that the need of Mohammad Yasin, respondent no. 6, was bona fide and genuine. It was stated that Mohammad Yasin is residing at J. B. Road, Bombay after his retirement and has settled there He is employed in the British Airways after his retirement and does not require the disputed accommodation. The application filed by the landlord-respondents was not maintainable under section 21 (1-A) of the Act, The petitioner will suffer greater hardship in case the application is allowed. The parties led evidence before the Prescribed Authority The Prescribed Authority recorded finding that Mohammad Yasin retired from service and he had no alternative accommodation. He does not own other building except the disputed property and his need was bona fide and his application was liable to be allowed under the provisions of section 21 (1-A) of the Act. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The petitioner aggrieved against the said order has file this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mohammad Yasin was owner of House No. 31, R. A. Bazar and therefore he had an alternative accommodation. The application filed by him under section 2tl (1-A) of the Act was not maintainable as there are other buildings of which he is owner in possession. The petitioner had filed written statement and therein he never stated that Mohammad Yasin was owner in possession of House No. 31, R. A. Bazar. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition it was stated that House No. 31, R. A. Bazar is in exclusive possession of Mohammad Yasin and after his retirement he had kept some goods in a portion of House No. 311, R. A, Bazar. A counter affidavit has been filed by Sher Mohammad and he has denied that Mohammad Yasin is owner of House No. 31, R. A. Bazar. His father-in-law was owner but he never gifted to him. He is however, residing in a portion of that house The accommodation of the said house consisted of three rooms and there are twelve members of his family and the accommodation is insufficient even for him.;