J.C. Gupta, J. - (1.) Both these writ petitions are taken up together as common question of facts are involved.
(2.) Heard petitioner's counsel Sri Narayan Singh Negi. Sri. R. K. Agarwal appears for respondent No. 3 who has filed caveat on his behalf.
(3.) This is tenant's writ petition. The house in question was previously owned by Nihal Chand and his sons. After the death of Nihal Chand, according to the case of the landlord, a family settlement took place between the family members and the house in question fell into the share of Brij Mohan Lal Garg respondent No. 3 and he alone became landlord of the same. Since he was at that time serving in Punjab rent was being realized under his authority by his brother Narendra Kumar. A memorandum in writing regarding family settlement aforesaid also came into existence on 8.9.1992 and names of the members of family were mutated in Municipal records against the property falling in their shares. Respondent No. 3 landlord was in service and retired on 31.1.1991 from the post of General Manager, Milk Federation, Punjab. He was given extension for about one and half years on contract basis and ultimately he had ceased to work from 30.6.92. He was occupying an official residence which he had to vacate on account of his cessation of his employment. Thereafter the landlord moved an application against the petitioner for the release of the house in question on the ground that the landlord, who has no other accommodation to live at Roorkee, was in dire need of the house in question as he wanted to settle down at Roorkee from where he could also manage his agricultural property. Since he occupied a high post in government service, he Intended to rebuild the house in question after demolishing the same. The application for release was thus purported to have been moved under Section 21 (1A) ; under Section 21 (1) (a) and Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The petitioner's stand was that there had been no such partition/family settlement as alleged by the landlord and the same has been set up in order to create a ground for eviction of the petitioner from the house in question. The bona fide need of the landlord was also challenged and it was also asserted that the building required no demolition as it could not be said to be in a dilapidated condition. The parties produced evidence and on the basis of the same the prescribed authority allowed the landlord's application only under Section 21-(1A) of the Act and rejected the application as far as it concerned under Section 21 (1) (a) and 21 (1) (b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order both the tenant and landlord filed appeals before the respondent No. 1 who has been pleased to allow the landlord's appeal, while the appeal filed by the tenant-petitioner has been dismissed.;