R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.N. Agrawal, appearing for the contesting respondents. The petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The respondent No. 3 filed a release application on the ground of his personal need and hardship. The Prescribed Authority was pleased to allow the said release application vide order dated 13.3.95 after recording the finding on the question of need and hardship in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order which was also dismissed on 13.4.1996 and six months time was granted to them to vacate the house in dispute. The orders, passed by the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority referred to above, have been challenged by means of this writ petition.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that according to the case of respondent No. 3, he was to vacate the house which was owned by his brother after the retirement of his brother from service. Therefore, the need of respondent No. 3 could not be said to be genuine and bonafide. The case as set up by the respondent No. 3 in his application was that after the death of his father the ancestral property was partitioned amongst his heirs and the house in dispute came to his share in partition decree passed in suit No. 625 of 1988, Anwar Ali v. Akhar Ali and others, while the house which was in his occupation was allotted to his brother, who was in the service of Railways and was on the verge of retirement. Since his brother Munnawar Ali wanted to make alterations and additions in the said house which was in his possession so that he may not face inconvenience after retirement from service, he has given notice to him for vacation of the house. The respondent No. 3 also gave notice to the petitioners for the vacation of the house in dispute which he wanted to occupy as he wanted to vacate the portion of his brother which was in his possession. The need of the respondent No. 3 was not dependent upon the retirement of his brother from service. It was immediate and bonafide as he wanted to occupy his house at once. The Appellate Authority did not commit any illegality or irregularity in allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 3.
(3.) IT may also be noted that according to the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that he was in possession and occupation of another house, he, therefore, had no right to oppose the release application.;