Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THIS is a second round of litigation in this Court. The petitioner is a tenant of one room, tin shed, bath room and latrine on the first floor of a building situate at Mohalla Tareen Gadipura, District Shahjahanpur of which the respondent No. 2, Shri Kamlesh Kishore Shukla, is landlord. The landlord is residing on the ground floor of the said building. One Ishwar Prasad was the original owner and landlord of the entire building from whom the respondent landlord purchased it by means of a sale deed dated 14th of December, 1981. A notice to vacate the disputed premises was given by the landlord to the petitioner on the ground that he bonafidely needs the tenanted accommodation in possession of the petitioner. It was followed by an application for releasing the building under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the landlord is a practising Advocate at Shahjahanpur and he needs the disputed accommodation to open his office therein and also to accommodate the clients. It was registered as P.A. Case No. 9 of 1985. It was further pleaded that the tenant has already purchased another accommodation in the name of his wife by means of a sale deed dated 20th of July, 1968 in Mohalla Khwaja Firoz. Therefore, the tenant has no right to oppose the release application filed by the landlord. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 31st of March, 1986. The said order was set aside in Appeal No. 13 of 1986 by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur on the ground that the Explanation -I to section 21(1)(a) of the Act could not be attracted and as such tenant's objection could not have been rejected as barred under the said provision. The said judgment was subject matter of the Writ Petition No. 20701 of 1986 before this Court at the instance of the landlord. The writ petition was allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for reconsideration.
(2.) AFTER remand by the High Court, the P.A. Case was renumbered as P.A. Case No. 20 of 1993. This time the Prescribed Authority rejected the release application on the ground that the landlord has got 4 rooms in his possession. The strength of the family members of the landlord and of the tenant being the same and the tenant is residing only in one room accommodation, therefore, he would suffer greater hardship if the release application is allowed as was held by the order dated 20.12.1993. The said order has been set aside in Appeal No. 18 of 1994 by the impugned judgment dated 22.5.1995. Hence the present petition. Shri K.L. Grover, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the Court below holding that the need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine, is vitiated. The Court below has failed to take into account that the property possessed by the petitioner's wife purchased through sale deed dated 20.7.1968 has been sold away by her to meet the expenses of the marriage of the daughter and as such the said accommodation is not available to the petitioner. It was further contended that the need of the lawyer's chamber on the first floor of a building cannot be said to be a bonafide one. According to him it is unusual to have a lawyer's chamber on a first floor of a building.
(3.) I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that the house purchased by his wife in 1968 was unfit for residential purposes as there was only one room without door and there was no latrine, bathroom and kitchen. The said house with land was sold in April, May, 1988 and November/December, 1988 for the purposes to meet the expenses of the marriage of daughter Km. Mamta Saxena held on 26th of January, 1989 vide para 6 of the writ petition. The copies of the sale deeds have been placed on the record. They are Annexure -1 to the writ petition. By means of the sale deed dated 10.5.1988 a vacant piece of land measuring 254.8 Sq. Mtrs. By means of another sale deed dated 28.12.1988 a vacant piece of land measuring 319.65 Sq. Mtrs. were sold. In para 8 of the counter affidavit a specific averment has been made that the petitioner's wife had purchased the land with construction measuring 800 Sq. Mtrs. The constructed portion of the house has not been sold through the aforesaid sale deeds and in the said sale deeds the wife of the petitioner had shown herself to be resident of Mohalla Khwaja Firoz, District Shahjahanpur. Clearly, it follows that the petitioner and his family are residing in the said house of which land had been sold through the aforesaid sale deeds. In reply to the said paragraph, the petitioner has not made a specific denial. In para 10 of the rejoinder affidavit only this much has been stated that the contents of para 6 of the writ petition are true and correct and reasserted. Further in para 18 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that the house purchased by the wife of the petitioner in 1968 was sold in the year 1988 to meet the expenses of the marriage of the daughter. It is difficult to accept the assertion of the petitioner in the light of the two sale deeds already on the record of the case that the entire property was sold away. These sale deeds do show that only the vacant piece of land was sold and the petitioner's wife retained the constructed portion. Moreover, there is no specific denial that the petitioner's wife had purchased the land and building admeasuring 800 Sq. Mtrs., as stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit. If that is so, it clearly follows that the petitioner's wife has got about 125 Sq. Mtrs. of land which also consists the standing construction. In this view of the matter, the inference drawn by the Appellate Court that the petitioner tenant has got an alternative accommodation is perfectly justified and I find no good reason to differ.;