- (1.) HEARD Sri B. K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the District Judge by which the appeal of the respondent no. 2 has been allowed. Briefly stated, the application was filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 praying for the release of the accommodation belonging to Sitapur Eye Hospital, which is a reg istered public charitable trust known as Sitapur Eye Hospital, Ranikhet. The property in dispute is a part of the hos pital. The premises known as Survey Plot No. 99/77/1 at Shiv Mandir Marg, Ranikhet, District Almora was let out to the respondent no. 2. The premises is required for looking after the patients and for their residence in the hospital area. If the accommodation is released, the patients will be benefited arid there fore, the requirement of the landlord is bonafide looking to the public interest as well. A written statement was filed by the respondent no. 2 denying the aver ments made in the application. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that in one of the portion, she is the tenant of the premises. It was admitted in para graph 21 of the written statement that the patients are not being put to incon venience by remaining in the accommo dation. In paragraph 25, it has been stated that she is a teacher in the Gov ernment Inter College and she has no house to reside. In paragraph 26 of the written statement, further it has been ad mitted that the patients use to reside in the hospital for eight to ten days. Fur ther in paragraph 28, it has been stated by the respondent no. 2 that she is mak ing efforts to get an alternative accom modation.
(3.) IN support of the application filed under section 21 (1) (a)of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 Dr. A. Mehrotra has filed an affidavit stating therein that the respond ent no. 2 is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month of two room accommo dation along with other amenities and the premises is required for accommo dating the patients, who use to come for the treatment and therefore, the require ment is bonafide. The certificate dated 6th April, 1976 was also filed, which was issued by the Cantonment Executive showing, that the said premises Plot No. 99/77/1 has been leased out to the Eye Hospi tal for the purposes of running the Eye Hospital, but most of the rooms have been rented out to the own person, which is infringement of the condition 1 (b) of the lease deed. A show cause notice was sent to the petitioner. The said notice is quoted below : "the Medical Officer 1/c Sitapur Eye Hospital Branch, Ranikhet Sub: USE OF THE HOSPITAL PREMISES FOR RESIDENCe Dear Sir, The Site comprising Sy. No. 99/777 1 Ranikhet Cantonment along with buildings situated thereon were leased to Eye Hospital Trust for the purpose of Eye Hospital. It has been noticed that most of the rooms have been rented out for residential purposes to various indi viduals, which entails infringement of condition 1 (6) of the lease. You are, therefore, hereby required to show cause within 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter as to why action be not taken against you for breach of con ditions of the lease. Yours faithfully, Cantonment Executive Officer, Ranikhet. ";