R.P.Singh - (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order passed by respondents 1 and 2 allowing the application of the landlord for the release of the disputed accommodation in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) SINCE the parties are represented and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and hence this writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage under Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules. The facts of the case briefly are that the petitioner is the tenant of the disputed accommodation, ground floor of House no. 47 S. C. Basu Road, Allahabad of which the respondents 3 and 4 are the landlords. The landlords filed an application for the release of the disputed accommodation under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that they are living in house no. 12-C/1 Minhajpur which belongs to Barkat Ali respondent no. 4. The case of the landlord respondent no. 3 is that his family consists of six members including himself while there are five members in the family of his brother Barkat Ali respondent no. 4 and since all the sons and daughters of the family have grown up and in all there are only four rooms, one verandah, one balcony, bath room and kitchen in house no. 12-C/1 Minhajpur in which both the brothers are living with their families which is wholly inadequate to accommodate the family members of both the brothers and due to this shortage of accommodation Barkat Ali who is the owner of the house is pressing his brother Moharram Ali respondent no. 3 to arrange for a separate accommodation and there being no other accommodation available in vacant state to Moharram Ali respondent no. 3 and hence the landlord applied for the release of the disputed premises for his own residence. The landlord also stated in his application that even though there are other houses which are owned by them but they are all in occupation of others and are not available in vacant state and in view of the bonafide and pressing need of the landlord and the continuing pressure of his brother Barkat Ali to vacate his house no. 12C/1 Minhajpur and to arrange for a separate accommodation, the landlord Moharram Ali respondent no. 3 moved the application on the ground that his need for the disputed accommodation is bonafide and genuine and greater hardship would be caused if the disputed accommodation is not released in his favour. The petitioner who is the tenant contested the release application on the ground that the landlords own a number of houses in the city and the house no. 12C/1 Minhajpur in which they are living is itself a big house consisting of 16 rooms which is sufficient to accommodate the members of their family and hence the need of the landlord is not genuine or bonafide and the tenant would be put to greater hardship if they are thrown out from the disputed accommodation.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority on appraisal of the evidence on record held that house no. 12C/1 Minhajpur was constructed and owned by Barkat Ali respondent no. 4 in which Moharram Ali respondent no. 3 has no share as there was evidence on record to show that the sale deed of the land of 12C/1 Minhajpur was execuied by Smt. Raisa Begum in favour of Barkat Ali and that Barkat Ali alone constructed the house in which landlord is living. THE Prescribed Authority also held that the other houses which are alleged to be owned by the landlord are neither owned exclusively by Moharram Ali respondent no. 3 nor any of them are available for the residential purpose of Moharram Ali in vacant state, and since Barkat Ali who is the owner of house no. 12C/1 Minhajpur is insisting upon his brother Moharram Ali to vacate the house which is too small to accommodate the family members of both the brothers, the need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine and thereafter holding that there are only two rooms available for the residence of the family of Moharram Ali which is wholly inadequate to accommodate six grown up members of his family including two daughter-in-laws and that the tenant had not made any attempt to search any alternative accommodation for himself since 1982 and hence the landlord under the circumstances would be put to greater hardship in case the accommodation is not released in his favour, allowed the release application subject to the condition that the landlord provides an alternative accommodation to the tenant on reasonable rent having at least two or three rooms within a period of two months. The tenant feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority went up in appeal before the IXth Additional District Judge respondent no. 1 while another appeal was filed by the landlord against that part of the order of the Prescribed Authority imposing condition on the landlord to provide an alternative accommodation to the tenant on reasonable rent within a period of two months. The respondent no. 1 on perusal of the evidence on record dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant upholding the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded in favour of the landlord and allowed the appeal of the landlord against the imposition of the condition on the landlord to provide an alternative accommodation to the tenant. It is this order passed by the IXth Additional District Judge dated 5-9-1989 which is in challenge in the present writ petition.;