- (1.) S. P. Srivastav\a, J. During the pendency of a revision under Section 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'act') filed by the tenant Sri Jairampuri, the respondent No. 3, directed against the order, dated 18-2-1932 whereunder the premises in dispute had been released in favour of the landlord, the present petitioner, who happens to be one landlord of the premises in dispute tiled an application seeking amendments in the original application tiled under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act putting forward his claim for the release of the accommodation for his personal occupation and use only. The Revising Authority, however, rejected the said application vide the order dated 25-7-1985 and proceeded to heard the revision filed by the tenant on merits which was dismissed on 24-12-1985.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of both the orders referred to above. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The premises in dispute had been let out to Sri Jairam puri, the respondent No. 1. An application seeking release of the accommodation in dispute for residential purpose of Sri Mahendra Kumar Nagalia was filed by the landlords including the petitioner who was applicant No. 6 in the release application. In the application, it had been asserted that Jairampuri, the tenant had constructed a house in the name of his wife Smt. Vidyawati near the premises in dispute in the year 1970 which was a double storey building, Srnt. Vidyawati had died in the year 1972 leaving behind Jairampuri and his son Sriniwas and unmarried daughters as her only heir and legal representatives. The accommodation aforesaid was more than sufficient to meat the requirement of the tenant. It was also asserted that the premises in dispute was bona fidely and genuinely required for being utilised for satisfying the urgent need of applicant No. 1, Sri Mahendra Kumar Nagalia. The claim of the landlords for the release of the accommo dation in dispute was contested by the tenant. During the pendency of the matter regarding the release, the present petitioner moved an application on 22-10-1981 praying for deleting his name from the array of the applicants. Later on he moved another application on 23-12-1981 objecting to the release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of Mahendra Kumar Nagalia asserting that neither it could be released in his favour nor could be allotted to any one else.
(3.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer considered the question relating to the accrual of vacancy in respect of the accommodation in dispute and vide the order dated 18-12-1981 declared the premises in dispute to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act. Under the same order after declaring the vacancy, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed for inviting the applications seeking the allotment fixing 23- 12-1981 for considering the matter relating to the release of the accommodation in dispute. It appears that since the accommodation in dispute had been declared vacant in the proceedings under Section 16 of the Act, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer first proceeded to consider and dispose of the application seeking release of the premises in dispute which application was allowed holding the need of Mahendra Kumar Nagalia to be genuine and bona fide. From the perusal of the aforesaid orders, it appears that the objection preferred by the petitioner were rejected indicating that firstly, he had withdrawn from the proceedings and secondly, on the ground that except him none of the other co- landlords had objected to the genuineness of the need of Mahendra Kumar Nagalia justifying the release in his favour and thirdly even if, there had been more co-landlords, the release could be granted even in respect of one. It appears that the tenant, present respondent No. 3, challenged the order of release by filing a revision under Section 18 of the Act. In the aforesaid revision the present petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 6. It was in the aforesaid revision that the petitioner had moved the aforesaid application seeking amendment of the release application, The revising authority, while rejecting the application seeking amendment in the original application for release observed that the amendments sought for would change the entire case and will re-open a controversy which had been finally settled and the amendment sought for was highly prejudicial to the interest of Mahendra Kumar Natalia, while disposing of the revision the revising authority endorsed the findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer about the accrual of the vacancy in respect of the accommodation in dispute. It was further held that the construction of a house by the son of Mahendra Kumar Nagalia could not affect the claim of Mahendra Kumar Nagalia for the release who was a heart patient as found by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.;