- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. This is tenant's writ petition for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 24-2- 97 and 31-5-97 passed by respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively, whereby the dis puted property has been released in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE dispute relates to residential house No. 9-B/l Jain Nagar, Meerut. Landlord-respondent No. 3 moved an ap plication under Section 21 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred as the Act' against the petitioner stating that Sri Jagdish Chand Jain son of Sri Nagina Lal Jain was the owner and landlord of the disputed accommodation who transferred the same to him and the name of the landlord has been duly mutated in Jain Pursharti Co-operative Housing Society, Jain Nagar, Meerut vide Resolution No. 11 dated 20-1-1992. THE house in question was purchased by the landlord for his bona fide and genuine requirement. THE land lord stated that house No. 8-B/l is owned by his brother Sanjeev Kumar Jain while house No. 8-B/2 is owned by his elder brother Subhash Chand Jain. THEse houses were allotted to them in the family settlement and that the landlord is residing in one room in house No. 8- B/2, Jain Nagar at the mercy of its owner Subhash Chand Jain. THE landlord has no house in his ownership, excepting the house in ques tion. THE family of the landlord consisted of himself, his wife and one daughter. In house No. 8- B/2 he has no space for kitchen, bedroom, drawing room, dinning room and guest room. THE one room ac commodation was therefore, not sufficient to cater his need. Besides that, Subhash Chand Jain, the brother of the applicant was also putting pressure upon him to vacate the room. THE relations of landlord's wife with the wife of Subhash Chand Jain were not cordial as the wife of Subhash Chand Jain is a hot tempered lady and she was creating problem in peaceful living of the applicant and his family. THE family of Subhash Chand Jain consisted of himself, his wife, one married son his wife and one son of marriageable age. Both the sons of Subhash Chand Jain required separate rooms and since his family was growing and was facing shortage of accom modation, the landlord has been asked by Subhash Chand Jain to vacate the room which is in occupation of the landlord. It was further pleaded that the petitioner-tenant was not residing at Meerut and was getting the accommodation locked. He is a retired person and resides with his son who is posted at Dehradun as an officer in Punjab National Bank. THErefore, he would not suffer any hardship in case he is ordered eviction. On the other hand landlord was suffering great hardship on account of non-availability of the accom modation in question. The release application was con tested by the petitioner on a number of grounds. It was not denied that he was a monthly tenant at Rs. 200/- of the earst-while owner Jagdish Chand Jain. He pleaded ignorance regarding allotment of house in question in favour of the landlord. According to him the landlord is owner/landlord of house No. 8-B/2 Jain Nagar, Meerut alongwith his brother which is built over an area of 200 Sq. Yards and is a triple storeyed building consisting of 8 rooms, kitchen, bathrooms- cum-latrine and the landlord was in occupation of 4 room, kitchen, and two bathrooms-cum-latrine. Similarly landlords brother Subhash Chand Jain was also in possession of 4 rooms, kitchen and bathroom. According to him-Late Nageen Chand Jain the grand-father of the landlord was the owner of building No. 8-B, Jain Nagar and bequeathed the said property to his three grand sons, namely, the landlord, Rajeev Kumar Jain and his brothers Subhash Chand Jain and Sanjeev Kumar Jain in equal shares. The l/3rd portion of Sanjeev Kumar Jain measuring about 100 Sq. Yards was separated and was numbered as 8-B/l, Jain Nagar, Meerut. The remaining 200 Sq. Yards remained joint property of 'rajeev Kumar Jain and Subhash Chand Jain who reconstructed jointly a triple storeyed building which was numbered as 8-B/2 and it was denied by the petitioner that the said building belonged exclusively to Subhash Chand Jain, the brother of the landlord or that the landlord was living in the said house at the mercy of his brother. It was also alleged that the son of the tenant was serving in Punjab National Bank since 16-11-71 and for the last 18 years he was being posted in Rural/hill areas in the district of Uttarkashi and Dehradun etc. and at present he was posted in village Quansi district Dehradun where he is not having big accommodation so as to accommodate the entire family. The al legation that the relations between the wife of the landlord and the wife of his brother were not cordial was also denied. The tenant further pleaded that the landlord has one more house bearing No. 107-C, Jain Nagar, Meerut situated just opposite to house No. 8-B/2, Jain Nagar and it was lying vacant which was in oc cupation of the applicant's father and mother before their death. Had the landlord any need of a separate residence he would have occupied the said house after the demise of his parents. The tenant further pleaded that the previous landlord Jagdish Chand Jain had filed an applica tion for release against him. The applica tion was allowed by the Prescribed Authority but the said judgment was set aside in appeal filed by the petitioner. The earst-while landlord then filed writ peti tion before this Court which was still pend ing and it was during the pendency of the said writ petition the property in question has been transferred by him in favour of the present landlord who fully knew of this litigation and according to the petitioner when Jagdish Chand Jain failed to get the accommodation in question released in his favour he got the property transferred in favour of the present landlord, who him self has no bona fide and genuine need. The tenant also denied that there had been any family settlement and according to him the alleged family settlement was a mere device to create false and frivolous need to give colour to the release applica tion. In the replication filed by the landlord it was clarified that grand-father of the landlord nominated Smt. Dropadi Devi his wife and after the death of the grand-father, name of Dropadi Devi was duly recorded in the record of Society and she became owner of house No. 8-B and the contention of the tenant that the said house was bequeathed through Will by Nageen Chand Jain to his three grand-sons was wrong as no such Will was-ever ex ecuted by Nageen Chand Jain, Smt. Dropadi Devi transferred her rights by transferring her share in favour of Sub-hash Chand Jain, Rajeev Kumar Jain (the present landlord) and Sanjeev Kumar Jain. The landlord in a family settlement subsequently relinquished his rights in house No. 8-B/2 on 13-8-91 and the relinquishment of his rights was dully recorded by the Society through Resolution No. 9 dated 25-8-91. In this way, house No. 8-B/l came to be recorded" in the ownership of Sanjiv Kumar Jain exclusively whereas house No. 8-B/2 was recorded in the name of Subhash Chand Jain, the other brother of the landlord and thereafter Rajeev Kumar Jain, landlord purchased the house in question for his bona fide and genuine requirement. House No. 109-C, Jain Nagar belonged to his father Roshan Lal who executed a Will in respect thereof and bequeathed the said house to Sri Kimati Lal and Sri Ashwani Kumar Jain became owner of the said house who are also in possession of the same. The family settle ment took place amongst the five sons of Roshan Lai Jain and the landlord has no right title or interest either in house No. 109-C or house No. 8- B/2. House No. 8-B/2 is not a triple storeyed building but has only a ground-floor and first floor and a duchhatti on the staircase on the second floor. He is staying in the house in question only as licensee of Subhash Chand Jain and not in his own right.
(3.) ON a consideration of evidence and other material produced before the Prescribed Authority, the release applica tion moved by the landlord was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 24-2-97 whose copy has been an nexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The appeal preferred by the tenant-petitioner under Section 22 of the Act has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by the order dated 31-5-97, copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Since affidavit, counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been ex changed and the parties' counsel have been heard at length, this writ petition is disposed of finally by this judgment.;