- (1.) VIKRAM Nath, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the judgment and order dated 21-4-1999, passed by the Special Judge, Basti, in Misc. Appeal No. 19 of 1996, Triloki Nath Gupta v. Shankar Prasad & Ors. , whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment of the prescribed authority dated 6-2- 1996, allowing the release application of the petitioner landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, was allowed and tenant was directed to evict the premises has been set aside.
(2.) THE dispute relates to a shop in the tenancy of respondent No. 2 Triloki Nath Gupta. THE property in dispute originally belonged to one Manohar Lal. THE petitioner (Shankar Prasad), his brother (Lalji) and father (Bachu Lal) purchased the property in dispute from the Joint Hindu Family Property Fund vide registered sale deed dated 9-2-1983. Subsequently, suit for partition was filed for dividing the properties by Meer Chand between the father and two sons. A compromise decree was arrived at on 17-8- 1984 and according to it the property in dispute fell in the share of the petitioner. THE petitioner filed an application for release of the shop in dispute under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that he personally required the shop for starting his own business. It was further alleged in the release application that the tenant Badri Prasad had built a house where he had shifted his business also. Further after the death of Badri Prasad his heirs had become the tenants. It was, therefore, alleged that in case, the release application is allowed, the tenant would not suffer any hardship. This was registered as P. A. Case No. 9 of 1986. The respondent No. 2 Triloki Nath filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the application. It was alleged that the landlord petitioner did not have any need much less bona fide; the compromise arrived at between the father and two sons was collusive in nature, the release application was filed before the expiry of 3 years from the date on which the right of ownership accrued in favour of the petitioner. Both the parties led documentary evidence in support of their cases and also filed affidavit. The prescribed authority vide judgment dated 6-12-1996 held that the need of the landlord-petitioner was bona fide and that in case, the release application is allowed, the respondent tenant would not suffer less hardship in comparison to the hardship, which would be suffered by the landlord, in case, the application is rejected.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the same the tenant respondent filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 19 of 1996. The said appeal was transferred to the Court of Special Judge (S. C. /s. T. Act), Basti for disposal. The appellate authority vide judgment dated 21-4-1999 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 6-2-1996 of the prescribed authority and accordingly dismissed the application of the petitioner for release. Aggrieved by the said judgment, petitioner-landlord has filed the present writ petition.;