- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2-2-1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority, allowing the release application filed by the landlords-respondents 3 to 8, for release of the disputed accommodation and the order dated 15-9-1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 dismissing the Appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE petitioner is*a. tenant of house No. 74 Mohalla Khoonipur, Gorakhpur City. Respondents 3 to 7 are the landlords of the disputed accommodation and respondent No. 8 is holder of their power of attorney. THEy filed application for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the allegation that sons of respondent No. 3, namely, Shahid and Majid are living at Bhppal but they want to carry on business in Gorakhpur city and for that purpose they require the accommodation for residential purpose. Rukhshana is the daughter of respondent No. 5 Naseer Fatma. She is living in a rented house and the disputed accommodation is required for her residential purpose. Smt. Ektesadun Nisa-respondent No. 7 is living in tenanted accommodation in Gorakhpur city and she also requires the accommodation in question for residential purpose. It was further stated that. the respondents 3 and 4 who were living at Bhopal they had to visit Gorakhpur city and whenever they visit, they have to stay in some hotel. THEy require the disputed accommodation for residential purpose. It was further stated that the petitioner had purchased a house in the year 1979 in the name of his wife and sons of petitioner who were residing with the petitioner and were dependent upon him, constructed another house in Gorakhpur city, therefore, the petitioner did not require the disputed accommodation and his objection was not liable to be considered in view of explanation (i) to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. Petitioner contested the application and it was denied that the need of the landlords was bona fide. It was contended that Shahid and Majid sons of Abdul Wahid-respondent No. 3 were already engaged in business at Bhopal and they are not to come to settle in Gorakhpur city. It was stated that Smt. Rukhsana daughter of respondent No. 5 was married and her need cannot be taken into account. As regards respondent No. 7 it was stated that she is re-married and her need cannot be taken into account. It was, however, admitted that the petitioner's wife had purchased a house in the year 1979 but the said house is in the occupation of a tenant. It was admitted that his son had constructed a house but it was stated that his sons left his premises in the year 1987 and, therefore, he was not living with the petitioner at the time he had constructed the house and the explanation (i) to sub-section (1) (a) of Section 21 of the Act, was, thus, not applicable. Prescribed Authority found that the need of the landlords was bona fide. Sons of respondent No. 3 are unemployed and they want to settle at Gorakhpur and require the disputed accommodation for residential purpose. It was further found that the respondents 3 and 4 whenever visit Gorakhpur they require the disputed accommodation for stay. It was found that sons or petitioner had constructed house in the city of Gorakhpur and therefore the objection of the petitioner was not entertainable in view of Explanation of the of Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application by order dated 2-2- 1995. Petitioner preferred appeal against this order and the appeal has also been dismissed by order dated 15-9-1995. Petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged the findings recorded by the respondents 1 and 2 on the question of bona fide need. It is urged that Shahid and Majid sons of respondent No. 3 had not filed any affidavit stating that they would settle at Gorakhpur and carry on business and in absence of affidavit filed by them, the conclusion drawn by respondents 1 and 2 that they require the disputed accommodation for residential purpose is incorrect. Respondents 1 and 2 have relied upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the landlords. It was not necessary that unless sons of respondent No. 3 themselves file affidavit, the version of the landlords could not have been believed at all. There was no documentary evidence to establish that Shahid and Majid were carrying on business at Bhopal. On finding that they are unemployed at Bhopal and want to live at Gorakhpur in order to settle themselves in some business, their need to occupy some residential accommodation was justified. It was not necessary to disclose any nature of business at the time of filing of the application itself when they have yet not been provided any accommodation for residential purpose.;