V.K.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 16652 of 1992 has been filed by Surendra Prakash Goel (landlord) questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated 15.5.1991 passed by Prescribed Authority rejecting release application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the order of affordance in Appeal on 26.3.1992 by the Vth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar.
(2.) CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 42432 of 2000 has been filed by tenant Vrindavan Bihari questioning the decision dated 7.9.2001 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar allowing the Rent Control Appeal No. 27 of 1996, Surendra Prakash Goel v. Vrindavan Bihari), Annexure No. 12 to aforesaid writ petition under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and thus, allowing release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 Brief background of the case is that Surendra Prakash Goel is the owner landlord of three adjacent flats bearing Nos. 25/1, 25/2 and 25/3 situated at Civil Lines South, Muzaffarnagar. In flat No. 25/2 Civil Lines South, Muzaffarnagar, K.K. Arora has been residing; in flat No. 25/1 Virndavan Bihari has been residing. House No. 25/3 Civil Lines South Muzaffarnagar was got released by petitioner landlord Surendra Prakash Goel in August, 1983 for staying of company Medical Representatives and for staying of salesmen as petitioner-landlord was whole seller of medicines. House No. 25/3 after same was released for some time was used as guest house and as was not found feasible by the petitioner to accommodate guest it was rented out to Factory Inspector on 5.9.1983 and same was subsequently rented to the department owned by State Government on 10.5.1984 by Rent Control Authority. Petitioner landlord at that point of time was staying in a rented house No. 28 Kuchcha Amir Singh, Muzaffarnagar on monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. One Rajendra Singh Ponwar in respect of house No. 28 Kuchcha Amir Singh, Muzaffarnagar as house No. 25/3 which was residential accommodation had been vacated by one Dr. Bansal raised plea that there was vacancy in respect of house No. 28 Kuchcha Amir Singh, Muzaffarnagar. In spite of fact that accommodation which was released in favour of petitioner was re-allotted to Government Department, the tenanted house where petitioner-landlord has been residing at house No. 28 Kuchcha Amir Singh, Muzaffarnagar vacancy was declared on 18.10.1984 and Delegated Authority as house No. 25/3 Civil Lines South Muzaffarnagar was allotted to Factory Inspector before 18.10.1984, in this background proceeded to-drop the proceedings. Against the order passed by Delegated Authority dropping the proceedings, Rajendra Singh Ponwar filed Revision before District Judge and said Revision was allowed and against the same Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15328 of 1985 was filed by petitioner landlord before this Court and said writ petition was dismissed and then petitioner landlord filed Special Leave to Appeal before Hon'ble Apex Court and said Special Leave to Appeal was also dismissed and Hon'ble Apex Court granted time to landlord-petitioner to vacate house No. 28 Kuchcha Amir Singh, Muzaffarnagar by 30.9.1987. Petitioner-landlord submits that thereafter he has vacated the premises in question on 30.9.1988, as he was permitted to overstay in the premises in question by landlady on the basis of compromise. Petitioner-landlord thereafter took another rented house No. 186/15 Aryapuri, Muzaffarnagar on monthly rent of Rs. 1200/- and since 15.9.1988, petitioner is residing therein, in this background of the litigation petitioner filed release application in respect of house No. 25/2 Civil Lines, South Muzaffarnagar which is in possession of K.K. Arora. In the said proceedings so undertaken petitioner clearly and specifically narrated that he was in bona fide and genuine need of house No. 25/2 Civil Lines, South Muzaffarnagar and he has been forced to stay at rented accommodation. Plea was sought to be taken that after getting premises in question released petitioner landlord will sell the same. Petitioner-landlord filed specific affidavit that he would not sell the premises on question. After evidences were led the Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the petitioner-landlord for release initially by mentioning that at present landlord of petitioner landlord has filed eviction suit No. 47 of 1989 as such need of the landlord-petitioner is bona fide and genuine one and then has further proceeded to mention that in respect of House No. 25/3, Civil Lines South Muzaffarnagar, entire proceedings were there and circumstances reflect that petitioner landlord intends to sell the same in this background, proceedings taken are in genuine one. Against the same Appeal has been filed and said Appeal has also dismissed on 5.3.1992. At this juncture Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11652 of 1992 has been filed.
(3.) IN respect of House No. 25/1 Civil Lines South Muzaffarnagar in tenancy of Vrindavan Bihari release application was filed being P.A. Case No. 56 of 1983 on 28.10.1988 contending therein that flat in question is bona fiddly required. In the said case plea was taken that earlier House No. 25/3 was got release from the possession of M.K. Bansal and same was again got collusively re-allotted to the Inspector of Factories U.P. In charge Muzaffarnagar Region Muzaffarnagar. Further reference was also given of the another litigation of K.K. Arora, Prescribed Authority rejected the said release application by holding that need of landlord was not a bona fide and genuine one. Aggrieved landlord preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 27 of 1996 and said Appeal in question has been allowed. At this juncture Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42432 of 2000 has been filed.;