R.H.Zaidi - (1.) THESE two petitions arise out of the proceedings under Section 21/(1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act).
(2.) APPLICATION for release of the house No. 35/1 Shanti Nagar, Railway Road, Meerut was filed by Dr. M. L. Nigam who is petitioner in Misc. Writ Petition No. 33920 of 1995 against Sri Layak Ram Gaur, the respondent No. 2 in the said petition. It is not necessary to state the facts as pleaded by the landlord in the release application in detail. It would suffice to state that the building in question was required for his personal use and occupation for establishing his clinic and Baithak. It was also alleged that the petitioner was a doctor who after his retirement from Government service, was living in house No. 36 which was owned by Sri Aditya Prasad and the accommodation in the said house was not sufficient to meet the requirement of the petitioner. Further on application filed by Sri Aditya Prasad, order of ejectment against the applicant from house No. 36 was passed. It was further pleaded that the respondent No.2 was a well-to-do person, his wife was posted as Principal at Meerut and that he also got constructed a Kothi at Shastri Nagar in the name of his wife. Plea of hardship was also taken by the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 filed his written statement denying the pleas taken by the petitioner in the release application. It was alleged that the need of the petitioner-landord was neither genuine nor bona fide. It was also pleaded that house constructed in Shastri Nagar was not a residential house and that the petitioner was living comfortably at residence No. 36, referred to above and that his application was liable to be dismissed. Parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The Prescribed Authority after going through the evidence on record, was pleased to hold that the need of the landlord for the building in question was genuine and bona fide and that the respondent No. 2 having constructed house No. H-2 Block Shastri Nagar, Meerut, had no right to oppose the release application filed by the petitioner and was pleased to allow the release application by his order dated 15.2.1994.
(3.) AGAINST the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the respondent No. 1, the appellate authority. The appellate authority affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority to the effect that the respondent No. 2 constructed his house in an area measuring 500 Sq. Metre in the name of his wife in Shastri Nagar, Meerut. His defence was barred in view of Explanation (i) to sub-section (1) of Section 21. It was also held that the petitioner, who was a doctor retired from Government service and that his need was bona fide and genuine. However, the appellate authority was of the view that the need of the petitioner would be satisfied by releasing one room out of three in his favour, consequently the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 was partly allowed. Respondent No. 2 was permitted to retain possession over two rooms out of three by the appellate authority vide its order dated 3.11.95. The petitioner as stated above, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed in part preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33920 of 1995. The respondent No. 2 has also challenged the validity of the order passed by the appellate authority in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3023 of 1996. Since both the aforesaid writ petitions arose out of and are directed against the common order, they were connected. I have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the parties in both the petitions and I am disposing of the same by common judgment and treating the Writ Petition 33920 of 1995 as the leading case.;