- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority passed under Sec tion 21 (l) (a) of UP. Act No. XIII of 1972 rejecting the application of the petitioner for release of the disputed accommoda tion and order of the VIII Additional Dis trict Judge dated 5-12-94 dismissing the appeal against the said order.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the petitioner filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation on the allegation that he had purchased the disputed house by registered sale-deed dated 7-11-1987 for. his personal use. The respondents No. 3 to 10 are tenants. He gave a notice for eviction on the ground that he requires the same for his residen tial purpose. He was residing in the house owned by her mother and accommodation in the said house was wholly insufficient for the family members, consisting of him self, his wife, three minor daughters. It was further stated that the respondents have purchased the property and, therefore, their objection is not maintainable, in view of the explanation of Section 21 of the Act which provides that where the tenant or any member of his family who had been normally residing with or is wholly de pendent on him has built or has otherwise required in a vacant state or has got va cated after acquisition a residential build ing in the same City, Municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub-section shall be entertained. The Prescribed Authority found that the tenant respondents have pur chased the property. But they had again sold the same. It was further found that the petitioner being residing in his ancestral house, the need of the landlord was not true. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate authority held that the tenant cannot raise any objection to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Act, as he had purchased a property. The mere fact that he sub sequently sold his property will not give him chance to raise objection. The Appel late authority, however, dismissed the ap peal on the ground that the petitioner has not disclosed the exact extent of accommodation with him in his ancestral house, nor any map was submitted in this respect. The version of the petitioner is that he was living in the house of her mother. Admittedly, the petitioner was not the owner of that house. The Appellate Authority has not considered the number of the family members and requirement of the landlord for the need of his family. The Appellate Court could himself make an inspection or appoint a commissioner to make local inspection. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 5-12-1994 is hereby quashed.
(3.) THE respondent No. 1 shall appoint an advocate Commissioner who will make the local inspection, where the petitioner is residing and will submit its report. THE Appellate authority after examining the total extent of the accommodation, the right of the petitioner to occupy such ac commodation and the members of the family for whom the accommodation is required, will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Petition allowed. .;