S.D.Agarwala, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings for release of a house initiated under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) The property in dispute is house bearing municipal Nos. 34 and 37 situate in Mohalla Swamx Para, Meerut, The petitioner is the landlord. Respondent No. 3 Deep Chand Jain is the tenant of the said house. The case of the landlord was that though two separate numbers were given by the Municipal Board, House Nos. 34 and 37 was in fact, one house. The prescribed authority allowed the application in respect of a portion of house No. 34. He directed the release of two rooms and verandah of house No. 34 on the ground that it was in a dilapidated condition. The rest of the application was. rejected. The tenant did not file any appeal but the landlord filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. In appeal it was again contended by the appellant that in fact the house No. 34 and 37 was one house and only different numbers have been given by the Municipal Board. It was further contended that the prescribed authority had no jurisdiction to grant the release of only a portion of house No. 34, but having found that a portion was in a dilapidated condition, the release application should have been allowed in respect of the full house No. 34. The appellate court did not agree with the submission made by the appellant but allowed the appeal in part only in regard to the direction of the prescribed authority regarding apportionment of the rent. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging tire order dated 26th August, 1977 by means of the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two submissions before me. His first submission is that the finding of the appellate court that the house No. 37 is distinct from house No. 34 is vitiated in law. His second submission that even if house No. 34 is separate from house No. 37 then too, the release application should have been allowed in respect of whole of the house No. 34 and not a portion, once having found that a portion of the house No. 34 was in a dilapidated condition.;