K. C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ of Certiorari quashing the judgment of the District Judge, Bulandshahr, dated 17-12-1977, allowing an appeal filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
(2.) THE dispute in the present case with respect to a house situate in Ano-opshahr, District Bulandshahr. This had been let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 8.50 Paise. THE premises had been originally let out to the petitioner for the purposes of residence. An application was filed under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of the Section 21 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for release of the premises by respondent No. 3 on two grounds. THE first ground was that the premises was required by the respondent No. 3 for her son Om Prakash Singhal for manufacturing of Ayurvedic medicines. In the alternative, the respondent No. 3 claimed that the premises was in a dilapidated condition and was required to be reconstructed. The application was contested by the petitioners. He alleged that he was using the premises for the purposes of residence and for manufacturing sweets, boora and Batasha. According to his case, as the dominant purpose for the premises was residential, the premises could not be released in favour of the respondent No. 3 for non-residential purposes. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application, against which the appeal filed by Respondent No. 3 was also dismissed. Hence, this writ.
(3.) AS the argument made in the writ petition was confined to the question that since the dominant purpose of letting out the premises was residential, it could not be released in favour of respondent No. 3 for non-residential purposes. I am not dealing with the other pleas raised by the petitioner. [t was the admitted case of the parties that the premises was let out to the petitioner for residential purposes. The respondent No. 3, however, alleged that the same was being used exclusively for business purposes. On the contrary, the case of the petitioner was that he was using it for composite purposes viz., residential as well as nonresidential in order to find the real use to which the property had been put to by the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority appointed a Commissioner and also made a local inspection himself. He found that the petitioner was using the premises in dispute for the business purpose exclusively, and that he was residing with the members of his family elsewhere. Accepting the evidence of respondent No. 3 as well as his report, the Prescribed Authority although rejected the application filed by the said respondent, but held that the user of the premises was business. In appeal, the learned District Judge agreed with the finding of the Prescribed Authority and held that the premises were not being used for residential purposes but were used only as a godown for business purposes.;