- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No. 3 Sri Ram Kishun against him on the ground of bonafide need under section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of Case No. 1 of 1988, Ram Kishun v. Rishipal and another. In the release application Swami Brahamanand was impleaded as proforma opposite party No. 2, who was real brother of landlord applicant Ram Kishun and it was stated that even though property in dispute was purchased in the name of Swami Brahamanand, how ever applicant Ram Kishun was real landlord. Tenant pleaded that both Ram Kishun and Swami Brahamanand were joint owners. Even if both the brothers were joint owners, still the release application filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 Sri Ram Kishun was quite maintainable vide Gopal Das v. AD. J. 1987 (13) ALR 575 (FB ). Supreme Court in India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. , M/s. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla 2004 (55) ALR 98 (SC)=2004 (14) AIC SO (SC) and Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, 2006 (63) ALR 506 (SC)- =2006 (41) AIC 129 (SC ). has held that proceedings for eviction against tenant may be initiated by one of the land lords, even without impleading other landlords as proforma respondents. The release application was filed under section 21 (1-A) of the Act. Under the said sub-section, retiring or retired landlord may seek eviction of his tenant if such landlord was/is in occupation of a public building for residential purposes which he had/has to vacate on account of cessation of his employ ment. Landlord was in Railway's service and was provided a Railway quarter. Application was filed after retirement. Tenant pleaded that landlord had taken premature retirement. It is rather fantastic on the part of the tenant to assert that landlord took premature retirement from Government service in or der to evict him. In any case, release application was filed exactly 20 years' be fore. Even if landlord had not taken retirement, he would have retired by now in normal course. Application under the aforesaid provision may be filed within a period of one year before the expected date of cessation of employ ment. However in that eventuality, order of eviction is to take effect only on the date of actual cessation of employment of landlord. Prescribed Authority, Amroha allowed the release application through the judgment and order dated 13. 2. 1989. Against the said judgment and order, tenant petitioner filed R. C. Appeal No. 22 of 1989. 1st A. D. J. , Moradabad dismissed the appeal on 17. 7. 19981, hence this writ petition. In my opinion, all the points have rightly been decided by the both the Courts below against the tenant. The tenant's assertion that landlord was residing along with his son, who was also railway employee and had been allotted railway quarter is not at all tenable. By virtue of aforesaid provision, cessation of employment and vacation of Government quarter was sufficient for allowing the release application. It was also proved that in Amroha, where house in dispute is situate, no house was available to the landlord. The Government quarter was allotted to the landlord in Moradabad.
(3.) IF a landlord wants to reside in his house and not with his son in the house allotted to his son by virtue of his Government employment, then the need is bona fide even under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. Landlord vacated Government quarter on 5. 3. 1987 and had taken retirement on 10. 12. 1985. The son of the landlord, who was also in railway service, had been transferred to Haridwar, when release application was filed. Tenant's suggestion that land lord should reside at Haridwar was rightly found frivolous by the Court below. Landlord also proved that he was residing in a tenanted house at Moradabad. Availability of a tenanted house to the landlord is meaningless while considering his need for his own house vide G. K. Devi v. Ghanshyam Das. AIR 2000 SC 656=2000 SCFBRC 5.;