- (1.) This is tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that Swami Balanasel, Chela, Swami Maharshi Raman, opposite party No. 2 is the owner of house No. 4 situate in Khurbura Mohalla in the city of Deharadun. It has been in the tenancy of the petitioner since long. The opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the old Act, which was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The opposite party No. 2 preferred a revision allowed by the Commissioner. The petitioner made a representation to the State Government under Section 7-F which was also rejected on 2.8.1969. Thereafter the opposite party No. 2 filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner form the party No. 2 also moved an application under Section 21 read with Section 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 972, hereinafter described as the New Act. In support of this application be filed an affidavit. On receiving notice of this application the petition filed objections. The Prescribed Authority, however, allowed the release application of opposite party No. 2. An appeal under Section 22 of the New Act was filed by the petitoner but it was rejected by the learned District Judge on 11.7.1977. This petition has, therefore, been filed for quashing the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge, interalia, on the grounds that permission under Section 3 of the old Act was granted to the opposite party No. 2 for performing Kirtan, Satsang and other religious activities in the disputed accommodation and as the permission was not accorded on any on the grounds specified in Section 21(1) or (2) of the New Act, the building could not be released under Section 21 read with Section 43(rr). It was also pleaded that the opposite party No. 2 did not require the building for his residence but he intended to sell it for a good price after giving vacant possession to the purchaser and on this score also the application could not be allowed. It was further contended that evn if any case for release was made out the tenant petitioner was prepared to forego a portion of the building and the whole accommodation could not be released.
(3.) As stated above the Prescribed Authority released the tenanted accommodation in favour of the opposite party No. 2 and the appeal has also been dismissed.;