K.S. Verma, J. - (1.) ONE Kailash Chandra is the landlord of an accommodation known as building No. 10, Nehru Road, Sadar Bazar, Police Station Cantonment, Lucknow. The dispute relates to the upper storey of the building which was previously let out to one Jitendra Singh. Kailash Chandra Vaish filed a suit for the ejectment of Jitendra Singh. The said suit for ejectment was decreed but time had been allowed to Jitendra Singh to vacate the accommodation within four months. Kailash Chandra, the landlord, moved an application for the release of the accommodation which was going to be vacated by Jitendra Singh in execution of the decree. The release application was made on 1 -1 -1978. The main ground for the release of the accommodation is that the landlord needs the accommodation for his own use. The application for release and the application of G.K. Pillai for allotment were beard together by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and by order dated 11 -6 -1979 the release application was dismissed and the accommodation in dispute was allotted to G.K. Pillai. Aggrieved by the said order dated 11 -6 -1979, Kailash Chandra Vaish filed two revision applications, one against the rejection of title release application and the other against the allotment of the accommodation to G.K. Pillai. The Additional District Judge by his order dated 27 -11 -1979 dismissed both the revision applications. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kailash Chandra Vaish filed a writ petition in this Court impleading G.K. Pillai as one of the Respondents. The writ petition was numbered as writ petition No. 358 of 1980. The prayer in this writ petition was that the orders of the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies) dated 11 -6 -1979 and the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow dated 27 -11 -1979 be quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari. The writ petition came up for hearing before K.N. Goyal, J. who set aside the order of the Additional District Judge and directed the District Magistrate to consider the application of the Petitioner for release of the accommodation afresh in accordance with the directions given in the judgment of this Court dated 23 -10 -1981. While dealing with the merits of the case K.N. Goyal, J. observed as follows: It is well settled that while in cases under Section 21 where a sitting tenant has to be displaced the question of relative hardship is also required to be considered. No such consideration arises in a case under Section 16. So far as cases under Section 16 are concerned, if a landlord genuinely needs the additional accommodation that is sufficient to entitle him to release. This has not been considered by the two authorities. Accordingly, their orders cannot be sustained.
(2.) WHEN the case came up before the trial court after the remand, an application was moved by G.K. Pillai on 18 -4 -1983 that the court may be pleased to afford an opportunity to him to contest the case cm merit for which be has not been given any notice to appear before the court. The court on 18 -4 -1983 dismissed the application of G.K. Pillai on the ground that he has no locus standi to intervene in the case till the release application is disposed of. The trial court on the same date, namely, 18 -4 -1983 held that the needs of the landlord for the accommodation in question were genuine and bona fide; hence the accommodation was released in favour of the landlord. In regard to the impleadment of G.K. Pillai the court observed as follows; The opposite party Sri G.K. Pillai sought an opportunity to contest the case but the prayer was disallowed in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in their order dated 23 -10 -81. Aggrieved by the order of release G.K. Pillai filed a revision application before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed on 10 -11 -1983. This order passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow is challenged in writ petition No. 6077 of 1983.
(3.) ANOTHER aspect of the case is that in 1979 G.K. Pillai filed a suit against Kailash Chandra Vaish for a declaration that the Plaintiff could not be evicted from the premises 10, Nehru Road, Police Station Cantonment, Sadar Bazar, Lucknow on the basis of the decree dated 13 -12 -1976 in Suit No. 558 of 1973 Kailash Chand v. Jitendra Singh. The case of G.K. Pillai was that the accommodation in dispute was allotted to him on 11 -7 -1979 after rejecting the release application of the landlord. The premises were vacated by previous tenant Jitendra Singh on 14 -7 -1979. It is maintained by the Plaintiff in that suit that be sent proper intimation to the District Magistrate (Civil Supplies) about the vacation of the premises and be got possession of the allotted premises on 14 -7 -1979 and is in peaceful possession of the same. The case of G.K. Pillai is that the Defendant is executing his decree for ejectment and in execution of the said decree is attempting to evict him although be is holding possession on the basis of an order of allotment. On these facts G.K. Pillai contends that he cannot be evicted in pursuance of the decree passed in favour of the landlord against Jitendra Singh. The suit was contested by Kailash Chandra Vaish who pleaded that the accommodation in question was illegally allotted to the Plaintiff. He had applied for the release of the accommodation and the question of allotment in favour of G.K. Pillai could arise only if the release application was dismissed. It is further contended that the allotment order was cancelled in writ petition No. 358 of 1980 and the Plaintiff is in wrongful possession* The case of the Defendant is that the Plaintiff wrongly and illegally occupied the premises on 14 -11 -1979. The case of the Defendant is that the release application moved by him has been allowed, the order of allotment in favour of G.K. Pillai has been cancelled and, therefore, he is not entitled to resist the decree for eviction obtained by him. The trial court dismissed the suit and the appellate court by judgment and decree dated 10 -11 -1979 maintained the decree passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the appellate decree G.K. Pillai has filed Second Appeal No. 817 of 1983 and by an order of this Court this appeal has been directed to be listed for hearing alongwith writ petition No. 6077 of 1983.;