Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.9.1993 passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, allowing the release application filed by the landlady -respondent under Sections 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to the Act) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.12.1996, affirming the order of the Prescribed Authority. Respondents 3 and 4 filed application before the Prescribed Authority for release of the disputed portion of the building No. 2/28, Swadeshi Bima Nagar, Agra. It was alleged that they had purchased it from Mahabir Prasad Jam vide registered sale deed dated 13.4.1984. They needed the accommodation for their residential purpose. It was further stated that the accommodation in question is in dilapidated condition. The applicants will demolish the construction and reconstruct the same. The petitioners contested the application and denied that the need was bonafide. The building in question did not require demolition and reconstruction. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application vide order dated 18.9.1990. The order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.12.1996.
(2.) I have heard Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.B. Mandhyan, appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the relations between mother -in -law and daughter -in -law were not strained and the finding recorded by both the authorities are incorrect. Secondly, the need of the brother of the landlady has been taken into consideration which is not permissible under law. Thirdly, there was one Mohan on the first floor of the building in question and the said portion having been vacated and released in favour of the respondents, the need stands satisfied. These are questions of fact. The Prescribed Authority has found that there are large number of family members of the respondents besides their brother. Even if he is excluded, considering the accommodation in his possession, they still require the disputed accommodation. As regards the accommodation vacated by Mohan, it has been taken into consideration by the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner has not given the details of the accommodation which was in possession of Mohan. In absence of any such material the order passed by the authorities below cannot be held to be manifestly erroneous in law.
(3.) THE next contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents had purchased the property in the year 1984. They filed application for release of the accommodation in question and unless a notice was given to the petitioner as provided under the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, the application was not maintainable. The petitioner does not appear to have pressed this point before the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority. Even in the writ petition it has not been asserted that this point was urged before the authorities below. It is not open to the petitioner to urge this point for the first time in the writ petition. Secondly, the application was filed not only under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act but also under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. For the purpose of filing an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act, the notice is not required to be given under the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The authorities below have recorded concurrent findings that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and is liable to be demolished and reconstructed.;