POONAM SRIVASTAV,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/tenant and Sri Vipin Sinha Advocate for the contesting respondent/landlord.
(2.) A release application was filed initially under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the year 1979 for release of residential accommodation in possession of four different tenants Smt. Kanta Sharma, Madan Mohan Sharma (one set of tenant), Ram Deen (second set of tenant), Smt. Ram Rakhi (third set of tenant) and Smt. Dropadi, Ladla (forth set of tenant). Four tenants filed their objections primarily regarding maintainability of single application for eviction of a number of individual tenants in occupation of independent accommodation. Besides, the bonafide need of the landlord and also the ground of accommodation being a dilapidated condition was disputed. The Prescribed Authority did not agree with the contentions of the landlord raised in the release application and came to a conclusion that the building was neither dilapidated and required demolition and reconstruction nor the need of the landlord was bonafide. The release application was rejected vide judgment and order dated 14.8.1980. Appeal No. 143 of 1979 was preferred by the landlord and during pendency of the appeal, an amendment in the release application was moved changing the release application under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the Act to an application under Section 21(1-A) of the Act. The additional ground that the landlord was a Government Servant and after his retirement in the year 1979, he vacated the official accommodation and, therefore, the portions of the premises in possession of the individual landlord was required to be released in his favour. The appellate court while allowing the amendment application was of the view that this is a new ground and, therefore, the matter was remanded vide order dated 27.4.1989 with a direction to the Prescribed Authority to frame issue on the newly added point and decide the matter afresh.
(3.) DURING continuation of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority in case No. 40 of 1979, the landlord gave up his case under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the Act but pressed the application only on the ground of Section 21(1-A) of the Act. Once again the Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 18.4.1995 declined to grant the benefit of amended provisions of the Act and dismissed the release application. Rent Control Appeal No. 41 of 1991 was preferred. The additional evidence in appeal was brought on record and the appeal has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 9.5.2008 by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Bareilly and the petitioners have been directed to vacate rented accommodation and handover possession to the landlord. The said judgment is under challenge in the instant writ petition. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and as agreed between the respective counsels for the parties, the case is being decided finally at the stage of admission itself. ;