J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ravi Kant for the petitioner and Sri A. N. Sinha assisted by Sri Ved Byas Mishra for landlady, respondent No. 3.
(2.) This is tenant's writ petition.
(3.) The dispute relates to a portion in the ground floor of the building known as 'Conniston', situated at Tallital. Nainltal. Petitioner is undisputedly a tenant in the same. Respondent No. 3, the landlady, in the year 1984 moved applications for the release of that portion as well as of another portion in the ground floor which was in occupation of another tenant. Smt. Kushum Lata Kukreti alleging that she bona fide required the entire ground floor accommodation for her personal use as well as of her family members. It was her case that her husband is a retired Naval Officer and he and the family were used to a decent and comfortable living. Before the retirement of her husband, she with a view to settle down at Nainital, along with her sister Smt. Anil Bisht and brother Sardar Amarjeet Singh respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively purchased the aforesaid building in the year 1980. It was further alleged that in a family settlement between her and her sister and brother, the entire ground floor fell into the share of the landlady and one portion of the first floor fell into the share of her sister while other portion in the share of his brother. She gave notice as per the requirement of proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act Intimating the petitioner that she has purchased the property and she was in dire need of the same and after the expiry of notice period, she filed the release application before the Prescribed Authority in the year 1984. It was also stated before the Court below by the landlady that the tenant-petitioner was comfortably settled at his farm situated in Kichha far away from Nainltal, yet the tenant was keeping the accommodation in question with him for no plausible reason. The landlady pointed out that her family consisted of herself, her husband, her mother-in-law and three daughters and looking to their status and standard of living, she was in need of the entire ground floor accommodation for personal use by herself and her family members. The application was contested by the petitioner on a number of grounds, the foremost being that the respondent No. 3 is not the owner and landlady of the accommodation in question and as a matter of fact, the erstwhile owner had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner and he was in occupation of the accommodation in question in part performance of that agreement. The bona fide need of the landlady was also disputed by the petitioner-tenant. On consideration of material produced by the parties, the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 2.7.87 allowed the application of the landlady and the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Act has also been dismissed by respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 25.5.99, Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority as well as of the appellate authority.;