GOVIND RAM Vs. IIND ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 17-12-1986 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby he allowed the appeal and released the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondent.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that respondent No. 2 (since deceased) filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. . Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) for release of a portion of premises No. 138-A, Sharwan Nath Nagar, Hardwar, district Saharanpur with the al legations that he was in Government ser vice and retired on 1 -8- 1980. He was oc cupying accommodation provided by the Government but after his retirement, he had to vacate the same. The petitioner was the tenant of the disputed premises con sisting of one room, verandah and kitchen and in the same premises he has an accom modation of one room which is hardly sufficient for his residence. His family con sists of himself, his wife, one son and two daughters. The application was contested by the petitioner. He alleged that the landlord-respondent No. 2 owns House No. D/18, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, New Delhi and he does not require the disputed accommodation. Respondent No. 2 is working in a private firm His wife is an agent of LIC working in Delhi and his daughter is also employed in Railway's service.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 took the view that the landlord does not own any house in Hardvar and if he does not own any house in Hardwar, the application for release filed by him can be treated under Section 21 (1-A) of the Act which provides that the Prescribed Authority shall, on the application of a landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from any building under tenancy, if it is satisfied that the landlord of such building was in oc cupation of a public building for residen tial purposes which he had :o vacate on account of the cessation of his employ ment. This provision is applicable only when the landlord does not own and in possession of any other house for his residential purposes. A Division Bench of this Court in Kafyan Rai Saxena v. II Addi tional District Judge, Bulandshahr and others, 1982 (8) ALR 205, held that the landlord can invoke Section 21 (1-A) of the Act only if he does not already have in his possession an accommodation which he can occupy in his own right after vacat ing the public building allotted to him in consequence of his employment. Respon dent No. 2 admittedly has an accommoda tion in premises No. 138 Sharwan Nath Nagar, Hardwar. One portion of it consist ing of one room and verandah is under the tenancy of the petitioner and another por tion consisting of one room is alleged to be in possession of the landlord-respondent No. 2.