Binod Kumar Roy, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the prayer is to quash (i) the order dated 4.2.1983 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Munsif, East), Hardoi in P.A. case No. 1 of 1980 allowing the application filed under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing release of house No. 538 situate in Mohalla Nabbi Purwa. Dharmshala Road, Hardoi; and (ii) the appellate order dated 29.8.1984 passed by III Addl. District Judge. Hardoi dismissing M.R.A. No. 6 of 1983 preferred by original petitioner No. 1 Surendra Pal. The case has got a chequered career. The application for release jointly filed by the landlords -opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 against the original petitioner No. 1 was initially dismissed vide order dated 27.1.1982, as contained in Annexure -3, which on appeal preferred by opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4, was set aside vide order dated 20.10.82, as contained in Annexure -4, and the case was remitted. After remand it was allowed vide order dated 4.2.1983, as contained in Annexure -5, after recording the following findings: - -(i) The applicant No. 2, in whose favour her father has gifted the disputed house by registered deed of Gift wants for her residence so that she could do some business by residing alongwith her husband in Hardoi and that she has no other house except the same or has constructed any other house, (ii) In terms of Section 3(g) 'brother' does not come within the definition of the word 'tenant' of the house in question. The original petitioner No. 1 went up in appeal which, as already stated, was dismissed vide order dated 29.8.84, as contained in Annexure -6, after recording the following findings: - -(i) The appellant still continues to be the tenant who has not stated that he has vacated the house in question and that his tenancy has expired, (ii) There is plea of only deemed vacancy and there was no plea of actual vacancy.
(2.) DURING the pendency of this writ petition the original petitioner No. 1 died and has been substituted by his sons. It is worth mentioning that the eviction was sought for on the ground also that original petitioner No. 1 - -tenant had constructed a house in the name of his wife (substituted petitioner No. 1). Sri D.C. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition, made the following contentions: - -(i) He is not pressing this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner No. 2. (ii) It was satutory for the courts below to have recorded a positive finding in regard to the bonafide need of the donee land -lady. This not having been done the order of the original authority and that of the appellate authority, who has also not considered this aspect of the matter, both are liable to be set aside. In this context he placed considerable reliance on two decisions of this Court in Sharda Prasad v. Smt. Sampati Devi and others : 1983 (9) ALR 376, and Kalpnath Pandey v. XI Additional District Judge Lucknow and others, 1993 (22) ALR 183.
(3.) AS requested, this writ petition on behalf of petitioner No. 2 is dismissed as not pressed.;