R.H.ZAIDI,J - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
(2.) PRESENT petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short the Act. The brief facts, which are relevant for the purposes of resolving the controversy involved in the present case, are that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 applied for release of the portion of the house No. 166-A, Ganj Bazar, Meerut, which was in occupation of the petitioner on the ground of their personal requirement and need. They have also taken the plea of comparative hardship. The said application was contested by the petitioner, who has contended that the need of the said respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was neither genuine nor bona fide and also pleaded that in the event he is evicted from the building in question he shall suffer irreparable loss. It was also pleaded that the building in question could not be released for residential purposes. The contesting respondents placed reliance upon the will alleged to have been executed on 3.8.1984 by Smt. Kiran Devi in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and according to the said will, they were allotted the portions of the house, for which the release of the said portions of the building in question was sought.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority after recording the findings on the relevant issues against respondent No. 3 rejected the application for release on behalf of respondent No. 3; but the need of respondent No. 4 was found to be genuine and bona fide. The finding on the question of hardship was also recorded in favour of respondent No. 4, and the portion of the house which was given to him under the will, was directed to be released in his favour by the Prescribed Authority.;