- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The Petitioner has sought writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 12th April, 1991 whereby her released the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the order dated 6th December, 1991 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE dispute relates to premises bearing No. 1-B, Wright Road, Jhansi. Respondent No. 3 is admittedly landlord of this accommodation. He filed an ap plication under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the allegation that the premises was let out about 20 years back while he was serving in the Indian Air Fore and that he had no need for accommodation at that time. He is going to retire on 31st March, 1990 and shall have to vacate the public building which was then in his occupation. His family consists of himself, his wife, widow mother and two daughters. THE tenant-petitioner has built up his own house bearing No. 97/5-A, Civil Lines, Jhansi where he is residing with his family and thus he does not need the accommodation in question. This application was contested by the petitioner. He filed written statement. It was stated by him that the premises in dispute was taken by him on rent from Smt. Bhagwati Devi widow of Sri Ladha Ram, grandfather of respondent No. 3 in the year 1971 and on her death all her heirs became owners and legal representatives of the accommodation in dispute. Respon dent No. 3 is owner of premises No. 108, Wright Road, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi which is situate in front of the premises in dispute just across the road in which there are 7-8 rooms and respondent No. 3 can reside in the said premises. It was denied that the owns house No. 97/5-A, Civil Lines, Jhansi. It was constructed by his son. He is residing there. THE parties led evidence in the case. THE Prescribed Authority found that respondent No. 3 does not own premises No. 108, Wright Road, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi. THE accommodation was let out by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner. He has since retired from service, requires the accommodation in question. He released the disputed premises in favour of respondent No. 3 vide order dated 12th April, 1991 and this order has been affirmed by respondent No. 1 in appeal on 6th December, 1991. THEse orders have been challenged in this writ petition. I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned Counsel for the respondent at great length. It is not disputed that respondent No. 3 was serving in the Indian Air Force and he has retired from service on 31st March, 1990.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petition urged that respondent No. 3 can reside in premises No. 108, Wright Road, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi. This house is situate across the road where the property in dispute is situate. There are 7-8 rooms in it. Respon dent No, 3 denied that he had any right and title to the said property. The main question arises as to whether respondent No. 3 has any right in premises No. 108, Wright Road, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi. The version of respondent No. 3 is that premises No. 108, Wright Road, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi belongs to Sri Om Saran Sahni. Ladha Ram, grandfather of respondent No. 3 had three sons namely, Om Saran Sahni, Jagdish Sahni (father of the petitioner) and Kuldeep Sahni. Om Saran Sahni died leaving behind him three sons. Satish Sahni, Anil Sahni, and Harish Sahni. Jagdish Sahni died leaving behind him three sons, namely, Ashok Sahni, Pramod Sahni (petitioner) and Vinod Sahni. Kuldeep Sahni is still alive. Sri Om Saran Sahni, the eldest son of Ladha Ram Sahni Who was Advocate by profession obtained land measuring about 1. 367 acres bearing plot No. 108, Wright Road, Jhansi, by means of a lease deed dated 28-5-1939 executed between the Railway on the one hand and himself on the other. A building on this plot is alleged to have been constructed by Sri Om Saran Sahni. The version of petitioner is that in fact, the lease deed was obtained by Sri Om Saran Sahni in his name as Ladh Ram had already contained another plot from the Railways and to avoid any difficulty obtained another plot in the name of his eldest son. On 15-12-1954 Om Saran Sahni is alleged to have ex ecuted a relinquishment deed in favour of Ladha Ram assigning the reason for execution of the deed. On 25th January, 1995 Ladha Ram had executed a gift deed in respect of the premises No. 108, Wright Road, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi in favour of his grandson. The petitioner has filed copy of the relinquishment deed dated 15-12-1954 and the gift deed dated 25-1-1995 as Annexures-6 and 7 respectively in the rejoinder affidavit. These documents were filed for the first time in the rejoinder affidavit and there was no averment in the affidavit filed by the petitioner regarding these facts before the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority nor these documents were filed before them. The petitioner further relied upon the affidavit dated 3-2-1983 filed by Kuldeep Sahni and another affidavit of the same date of respondent No. 3 filed in case No. 83 of 1981. Kuldeep Sahni had filed an application for release of his accom modation against his tenant Mannu Lal Dwivedi and others regarding premises bearing No. 3-A, Wright Road, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi. The tenant had filed objection and one of the objections was that the other property bearing Nos. 1-A, 1-B, 2-A and 2-B also belonged to Kuldeep Sahni. Kuldeep Sahni filed affidavit denying these facts and it was stated that house Nos. 2-A and 2-B belong to Sri Om Saran Sahni. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit a further averment was made that the building which is in front of the said house jointly belongs to him and his brothers. In paragraph 3 it was stated that so far as the property in dispute i. e. 3-A and 3- B are concerned, they were bequethed to him under a will executed by Ladha Ram and according to the will 2-A and 2-B have been given to Sri Om Saran Sahani and 3-A and 3-B to Sri Kuldeep Sahni. Similar affidavit was filed by respondent No. 3 in support of the version of Kuldeep Sahni. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sub mits that the contents of paragraph No. 2 of the affidavit filed in the said case clearly suggest that the building 108, Wright Road, Jhansi jointly belongs to all the sons of Ladha Ram. Premises No. 108, Wright Road, Jhansi was not in dispute in case No. 83 of 1981. Paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed by Kuldeep Sahni and Pramod Sahni only indicates that there was property in front of the accommodation which was in dispute in that case and that belongs jointly to the sons of Ladha Ram. It is stated that premises No. 108, Wright Road, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi is across the road where the premises in dispute is situate. It is, however, clear that there was no reference of bungalow No. 108, Wright Road, Jhansi in the affidavits filed by Kuldeep Sahni and Pramod Sahni. The question involved in that case was not regarding premises No. 108, Wright Road, Jhansi. The question of title was also not involved in that case. The averments made in that case are not conclusive regarding the ownership of the property.;