M.C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner tenant challenges an order dated 6th December, 1996 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Jhansi, whereby he allowed the landlord's appeal and his application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and ordered the eviction of the petitioner from house No. 22 situate in mohalla Chaudhariyana in the town of Jhansi.
(2.) The landlord respondent No. 1 put in appearance through Sri R.N. Bhalla, Advocate who did not choose to file any counter affidavit and the writ petition has been finally heard at the admission stage itself.
(3.) The landlord Shri Kant Gupta moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the said house in his favour contending that he required the same for his personal use as the said house alongwith the adjoining shop Nos. 23 and 24 was owned by him by virtue of a partition in the family and he being at the threshold of life wants to construct a new house and that he would also get the adjoining shop Nos. 23 and 24 vacated in separate proceedings and set up his office as an advocate therein. The said application was moved in the year 1984 and 12 years have since elapsed. The petition was contested by the tenant contending that the landlord is in no need of the accommodation in question as his father is a big landlord and he is living with his father in house No. 259. The learned Prescribed Authority dismissed the application for release holding that the partition relied upon by the landlord was not established and that the property in question that was described as a khandhar by the petitioner may not be of a character of a building to which U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 could be applicable. The learned Prescribed Authority also held that the need of the landlord was not established. The landlord respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal to the District Judge and his appeal has been allowed. The learned District Judge held that the partition was not even disputed and was sufficiently established and that the accommodation did not cease to be a building within the meaning of the Act and that the landlord's need was bonafide and genuine while the tenant did not require the accommodation at all which was lying virtually unused. The learned IInd Additional District Judge, therefore, allowed the landlord's application for release. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.;