S.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) The Union of India and Chief Superintendent, Central Telegraph Office, who are tenants in House No. 22, Kutchery Road, (Dr. B.N. Verma Road), Lucknow owned by Dr. Dinesh Chandra, opposite party No. 3, have directed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against their eviction ordered by the courts below in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). The petitioners lost before the Prescribed Authority as well as before the IXth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, who decided the appeal.
(2.) In the application under Section 21 the landlord pleaded that he had constructed the house with the sole purpose of occupying it himself along with the members of his family. He was in Government service and was posted outside the town and he accordingly let out the house to the petitioners for a period of five years in April, 1972. The period expired but the petitioners continued to remain in occupation of the house. He was due to remain in February, 1982 and in order to have the house available to him on retirement, he served notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the petitioners on 14-4-1981 and also notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter filed suit for eviction. This suit for eviction was filed on the basis that the Act was not applicable to the house aDd, therefore, the restrictions on eviction provided under Section 20 were also not attracted. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the Act and Section 20 thereof were applicable and since none of the grounds mentioned in Section 20 for claiming eviction had been made out. After the dismissal of the suit, the application under Section 21, which has given rise to the present petition, was filed on 5-9-1984. In this application the petitioner's plea was that he had retired from Government service and requires the house in question for his personal occupation along with the members of his family. He pointed out that he had already returned to town and his own house being in occupation of the petitioners, he had taken a house on rent in the Aliganj Extension Scheme, Lucknow. It was alleged that his wife was a patient of Engina and was receiving treatment for the said ailment. He described his family as consisting of himself, his wife, two sons and two daughters. The daughters had been married to officers of All India Services, At the time of moving the application, one of the sons was posted at Paris. In Paragraph 18 it was posted that considering his own status and status of his sons-in-law and sons, the entire accommodation was required by him. The petitioner was Assistant Collector, Central Excise.
(3.) The above application was contested by the petitioners who denied the claim of bona fide requirement pressed by the landlord. It was stated that the house in question was a "public building" and was beyond the purview of the Act, It was pleaded that the petitioners were running the essential public service and they were catering to the requirements of the major business community of Lucknow and particularly the public staying or having business dealings in and around Aminabad. On this basis it was stated that it was not possible to shift the offices which was operating from the house in question.;