Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -List has been revised. The counsel for the petitioner is present. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents tenants. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 12.9.2006 in Misc. Appeal No. 341 of 1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Meerut and the judgment and order dated 12.8.1998 in P.A. Case No. 59 of 1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Addl. Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner landlord filed an applcation under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the prescribed authority for release of ground floor of house No. 249 situate at Teli Mohalla Kabari Bazar, Meerut Cantt. under the tenancy of the respondents tenants alleging that they had been given the accommodation in dispute on rent for residential purposes and it was being used by them as a godown ; that house No. 247 in which the landlord is living with his family has been insufficient due to increase in family ; and that the respondents tenants have purchased their own house No. 415/416 in the same locality where the house in dispute is situated, hence it may be released in favour of the landlord on grounds of bona fide need and comparative hardship. The respondents tenants filed their objection denying the relationship of landlord and the tenants asserting that the accommodation in possession of the landlord is sufficient for his family ; that he is residing in the disputed accommodation and not using it as a godown ; that house No. 415/416 was purchased by his wife 40 years back by her stridhan before the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into force and that aforesaid house is a two storied building having four shops on the ground floor wherein his sons are doing business and on the first floor his two sons are living with their families and he alongwith his wife is living in the disputed accommodation ; that apart from the aforesaid disputed house the tenant has no residential house in Kaseru Khada and Rajban Bazar ; that the landlord of the disputed accommodation is Shanker Lal and not the applicant Navin Kumar ; and that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and the release application is liable to be rejected.
(3.) THE prescribed authority vide order dated 12.8.1998 dismissed the release applicatioin of the petitioner landlord holding that the need of the landlord-petitioner is not bona fide and the property in the name of the wife of the tenant, i.e., house No. 415/416 is excluded from consideration of Exception under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12.8.1988 the petitioner landlord preferred Misc. Appeal No. 341 of 1998 before the appellate court which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.9.2006 confirming the findings of the trial court, hence this writ petition.;