S.D.Agarwala - (1.) -These are two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under section 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE property in dispute is flat no. 2, Rajendra Building, Shanti Nagar, Railway Road, Meerut. On 24th August, 1980, Dr. M. L. Nigam purchased this flat for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. When this flat was purchased, it was lying vacant and proceedings for allotment were going on in respect of the same. Consequently, Dr. Nigam moved an application for release of the said accommodation under section 10 of the Act. THEre were many applicants for allotment of the said flat. Ultimately by an order dated 1st November, 1980, the release application moved by Dr. Nigam was rejected and the flat was released in favour of Shiv Kumar Sharma. THE order dated 1st November, 1980 rejecting the release application and also the order allotting the premises in favour of Shiv Kumar Sharma was challenged in revisions by Dr. Nigam as well as by one Ashok Kumar, who was one of the applicant for allotment of the said flat. Both the revisions being revision no. 432 of 1980 and 458 of 1980 were filed under section 18 of the Act, which were allowed by the revisional court i.e. VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut by separate orders dated 3rd August, 1985. Writ Petition No. 12123 of 1985 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the revisional order allowing the release application and writ petition no. 12124 of 1985 has been filed against the order of the revisional authority setting aside the allotment order made in favour of Shiv Kumar Sharma. Since both these petitions raise a common question of fact and law and relate to the same property, they are being decided by a common judgment. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shiv Kumar Sharma in both the petitions and learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, Dr. M. L. Nigam. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the finding to the effect that the need of the landlord was not bonafide, given by the Additional District Magistrate, was a finding of fact and the revisional authority in exercise of the powers under section 18 of the Act, cannot set aside the said finding. It was further urged that in case the finding in regard to the bonafide need could not be reversed, the application for release should have been rejected. If the application for release was rejected, then automatically the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner would stand.
(3.) I have examined the judgment of the Additional District Magistrate dated 1st November, 1980, by which it was held that the need was not bonafide. The said need was held not to be bonafide mainly on three grounds firstly, on the ground that the tenanted accommodation in occupation of the landlord was already sufficient and consequently, he does not need the accommodation in dispute, secondly, on the ground that the release application was not sufficiently stamped and the third ground for rejecting the release application was that the sale deed was not bonafide and the landlord had sold the disputed accommodation at a throw away price and as such, the need was not bonafide. In Naubat Ram Sharma v. Additional District Judge IX, Moradabad, 1987 AWC 1168. I have taken the view that the District Magistrate while considering an application for release under section 16 of the Act, has to consider only whether the building sought to be released is bonafide required by the landlord or not. He has not to consider as to whether the accommodation already in occupation of the landlord is sufficient for his needs or not. Every owner of a building has a right to occupy his own building and as such the legislature contemplated that when the building is vacant or is likely to fall vacant and the landlord requires the said building for his bonafide need. then the said building should be released in favour of the landlord. It was further observed by me that this is a sole consideration which has to weigh with the District Magistrate when he takes up the release application under section 16 of the Act for consideration.;