- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Heard.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of order dated 28-1-97 passed by lower appel late Court (Annexure-4) affirming the decision dated 20-5-94 of the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 1 whereby the release application of the landlord moved under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called as the Act) has been allowed. The dispute relates to house No. 66 Mohalla Purohitantola. district Etawah which was under the tenancy and in occupation of Jay Ram Das as a tenant since before the house in question was purchased by the landlady-respondent No. 3 on 22-5-80. The landlady applied before the Prescribed Authority for the release of the said house alleging that the same was bonafide re quired to meet the need of her family con sisting of self, her husband, three daughters and one son as she wanted to settle down in Etawah for the education and up bringing of her children. As a temporary measure she was presently living with her mother-in-law in a rented house. Her husband who is a Railway employee was posted at Mainpuri and he is coming back daily to Etawah from Mainpuri. It was also pleaded that the tenant himself was not residing in the house in question as he was posted outside Etawah where he was living with his family and has sub-let the house in question to his brothers Maganlal, Kishan Lal and Bhaggu alias Bhagwan Das, the present petitioner. Therefore, according to the landlady the tenant was not likely to suffer any hardship. Jay Ram Das tenant contested the said ap plication and filed written statement inter-alia pleading that the need of the landlady was not bonafide and the only intention of filing the application was to sell the house and she had no desire to settle down at Etawah. It was also alleged that the husband of the landlady got himself transferred to Etawah from Mainpuri and he has been provided a Government quarter in Railway Colony. The allegation of sub-letting was also denied. During the pendency of the proceed ings, the tenant Jay Ram Das died and the petitioner as well as respondents No. 4 and 5 were brought on record as his legal repre sentatives because the tenant died leaving no children and wife. The legal repre sentatives so brought on record, however, did not file any separate written statement of their own.
(3.) ON a consideration of evidence and material on record the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 20-5-94 allowed the ap plication of release in favour of the landlady. Appeal filed by petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 has also been dis missed by the impugned order dt. 28-1 -97. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their consent and in the circumstances of the case this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage as counter and rejoinder- affidavits have been exchanged.;