- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 25-8-1990 passed by the prescribed authority releasing the disputed accom modation in favour of the landlord-respondent and the order of the appellate authority dated 6-5- 1995 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE landlord-respondent No. 1 filed an application for release of the house No. 810, Sotiganj, Meerut City under the tenancy of the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) on the ground that he bona fide needs the dis puted accommodation for residential pur poses. THE petitioner contested' the ap plication. It was denied that the need of me landlord was bona fide. THE prescribed authority, considering the evidence, recorded a finding that the need of the landlord was bona fide and allowed the application vide order dated 25-8-1990. THE petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment. THE appellate authority allowed the appeal on 7-2- 1991. Respon dent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 12196 of 1991. This Court allowed the writ petition on 21-2-1995 and remanded the matter to the appellate authority with certain direc tions. THE petitioner, against this judg ment, filed Special Leave Petition No. 13927 of 1995 before the Supreme Court. In the meantime the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 6-5-1995 which was filed by the petitioner against the order of the prescribed authority dated 25-8-1990. Later on the Special Leave Petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 31-2-1995 with an ob servation that the petitioner-appellant can raise the points which he has raised in the Special Leave Petition. I have heard Sri K. M. Dayal, Senior Counsel, for the petitioner, and Sri M. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respon dent. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was filed on the ground that the landlord feels unsafe in the house No. 233, Mohanpuri, Meerut City, where he is residing. The said fear has come to an end that he is still residing and his son is residing. The prescribed authority had considered this aspect in detail and found that the need of the landlord is bona fide. Further in the context that the petitioner has offered the first floor of house No. 233, Mohanpuri, Meerut City, where the landlord was residing. The finding on the question of bona fide need taken into con sideration, does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
(3.) THE second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord had offered first floor of house No. 233, Mohanpuri, Meerut City, and specific averment to this effect was made in para 8 of the application made by respondent No. 1 under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act. THE appellate authority on remand of the case by the High Court reduced the portion which was originally offered to the petitioner. THE appellate authority, on consideration of the aver ment of the tenant- petitioner, came to the conclusion that a portion of the first floor was sufficient for her need. During the pendency of the writ petition respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit dated 26th August, 1997. In para 5 of the affidavit he has reaffirmed the offer of the alternative accommodation to the tenant-petitioner being house No. 233, Mohanpuri, Meerut City which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The appellate authority had reduced the area when respondent No. 1 had offered before the appellate authority which was lesser in area. A copy of the map has been annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition.;