RAM SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, VARANASI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition by a tenant is directed against orders passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 21 (l-A) of the U. P. Act No, XIII of 1972 releasing the accommodation in dispute in favour of the husband of respondent No. 6, the original landlord. These are the relevant facts:-

(2.) THE accommodation in dispute consists of a portion of house No. C 4/306 Sarai Gobardhan, Varanasi. It was originally owned by one Sri Jagat Ram. He gifted the said house in favour of his son Niranjan Singh, the husband of Smt. Kailashwati Devi, the respondent No. 3. Niranjan Singh was thus the owner and landlord of the aforesaid house which is the accommodation in dispute. The petitioner was a tenant of Jagat Ram and, subsequently, after the gift mentioned above, of Niranjan Singh. Niranjan Singh filed an application for eviction of the tenant from the aforesaid accommodation on 29-11-1975 on the ground that he needed the accommodation in dispute for his residence. While that application was pending Sub-section (l-A) was added to U P Act No. XIII of 1972 by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976. Under Section (l-A) it was provided, that the landlord who was in occupation of a public premises for residential purposes which he had to vacate on account of cessation of his employment, could apply for an order of eviction of the tenant occupying a building belonging to the landlord and upon such an application, the Prescribed Authority under the Act was enjoined to order the eviction of the tenant. Relying on sub-section (I-A) Niranjan Singh applied for the amendment of his application under Section 21 (I). The said amendment was allowed. The tenant filed objections against the application of Niranjan Singh. The prescrib­ed Authority over-ruled the objections of the tenant and ordered his eviction from the accommodation in dispute under Section 21 (I-A). The tenant filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal Niranjan Singh died on 27-8-1978. On 15-11-1978 his widow made an application before the Appellate Court to the effect that the tenant not having taken steps to bring her on the record within the prescribed period of limitation, the appeal be declared as having abated. This widow made another application on 6-1-1979 to the same effect. It was thereafter that the tenant filed an application for substitution. This substitution application was contested but was eventually allowed. The appellate Court then considered the case on merits, and, agreeing with the Prescribed Authority, dismissed the tenant's appeal. Hence this petition.

(3.) ANOTHER provision which was subject of considerable debate at the Bar is sub-section (7) of Section 21, which runs as under:-