Satish Chandra, Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) FINDING a conflict of opinion between the learned Single Judges of this Court, another learned Single Judge has referred this writ petition to a Division Bench.
(2.) THE Petitioner is the landlady of the accommodation in dispute which is situate on the first floor of the building in Dehradun. The landlady applied for permission to sue for the ejectment of the tenant under the Rent Control Act of 1947. These proceedings were treated to be for release under Section 21 of the U P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The tenant -Respondent contested the proceedings. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of the landlady was genuine. The application for release was allowed. On appeal, however, that order was set aside and the matter was sent back for decision afresh. After remand, the Prescribed Authority held that the need of the landlady for the accommodation in dispute was not bonafide and that comparatively, hardship to the tenant would be much greater if he is ordered to be evicted. On these findings, the release application was dismissed. Aggrieved, the landlady went up in appeal.
(3.) IN appeal, it was urged that since the tenant's son had constructed another building in the same town, Explanation (i) of Section 21(1) of the Rent Control Act, 1972 debarred the tenant from raising any objection to the release application of the landlady. The learned Judge found that the tenant's son had admittedly constructed the Kothi and that it was vacant on July 15, 1972 when the Act of 1972 came into force. It was let out to tenants much later. Consequently, Explanation (i) of Section 21(1) of the Act was applicable to the facts of the present case and so no objection on behalf of the tenant to the release application was liable to be heard. The learned Judge went on to consider the question whether the landlady had established her bonafide need for the accommodation in question. After referring to the evidence led by her as well as by the tenant, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the accommodation in actual possession of the landlady on the ground floor was sufficient for her needs and that she had failed to establish bonafide need for the accommodation in question, namely, which was in the occupation of the tenant on the first floor of the building. On these findings, the appeal was dismissed.;