- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order of release in the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed by the Prescribed Authority which order had been affirmed in appeal, the petitioner-tenant has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the said orders.
(2.) I have beard Sri A. N. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel representing, the contesting respondents. The facts shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The respondents No. 3 to 7 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the portion of the building in dispute in her tenancy asserting that the said premises was genuinely and bona fidely required for satisfying their needs which had grown with the passage of time. It was asserted that all the five appli cants resided in a room which was so small that even two cots could not be placed in it. It was alleged that there was no latrine and pipe on the ground floor for their use. It was further alleged that applicant No. 2 was of a marriageable age and was to be married soon. The applicant No. 4 was a student and required a separate room for studies. Similarly applicant No. 5 also required separate accommodation. It was asserted that the accommoda tion in possession of the applicant was too short for them and their need to occupy the portion in question on the first floor for their residence was not only bona fide and genuine but pressing also. It was also asserted that the opposite party tenant could very well settle at Bharwari which was not far away from the City. In support of the assertions made in the application seeking release the affidavit of Mst. Maqboolan Bibi, the respondent No. 3 was filed. The petitioner-tenant did not file any reply in the case as contem plated under Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. However, she filed a counter-affidavit in reply to the affidavit filed by Mst. Maqboolan. The assertions made in the aforesaid counter-affidavit were controverted by Mst. Maqboolan Bibi by tiling a rejoinder affidavit. The Prescribed Authority vide its judgment and order dated 30-4-83 granted release of the accommodation in dispute holding that the need for the said premises was bonafide, genuine and pressing. On the question of relative hardships the Prescribed Authority was of the view that since no reply had been filed by the tenant as contemplated under Rule 15 of the Rules which reply has to contain the pleadings it could be legitimately inferred that the tenant had no case on this aspect as in the absence of requisite pleadings, affidavit evidence filed by the tenant in the shape of a counter- affidavit was liable to be ignored.
(3.) THE order of the Prescribed Authority was challenged by the tenant in appeal. THE appellate authority endorsed the view of the Prescribed Authority. THE appellate authority further affirmed the finding on the question of the need for release bona fide, genuine and pressing, considering the report of the Commissioner and noticing that the tenant had not even suggested in her affidavit that the necessity of the landlord was not pressing and genuine or that the landlords have any other accommodation where they could shift. On the question of relative hardships the appellate authority recorded a finding that the hardship likely to be suffered by the landlord in the event of the dismissal of the release application would be greater as compared to the hardships likely to be suffered by the tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the respondent-authorities have manifestly erred in ignoring the affidavit evidence tendered by the petitioner in the shape of the counter-affidavit on the sole ground that it could not be looked into in the absence of any pleadings. The contention raised in this regard is that there is no provision under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder which may require the filing of a written statement as contemplated under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and in this view of the matter the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner ought to have been treated as containing not only the pleadings but also the evidence which could not be ignored in the manner as done by the respondent authorities.;