SATISH CHANDRA Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short controversy is left to be decided in the present petition. The matter had come twice before this Court. The landlord's application under Section 21 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the appeal against the aforesaid order filed by the tenant was also dismissed. The tenant challenged both the orders in writ petition which too was rejected by Hon'ble R.P. Singh, J. by his order dated 10th February, 1988. With regard to the dispute relating to the identity of the alternative accommodation offered by the landlord to the tenant, it was held that the same was clearly defined by the landlord in the release application. In the second writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 20518 of 1988, it was directed by Hon'ble N.N. Mittal, J. that on the tenant's vacating the disputed premises (Shop) the tenant will be put in possession of the alternative accommodation offered by the landlord within a period of 15 days. In the present petition, again the grievance of the petitioner is that the landlord has not adhered to his commitment and the alternative accommodation which is now being offered is not the same and the eastern room of the house has been partitioned. The accommodation which is now being offered is a small room of 8' x 6 1/2'. The petitioner has alleged that the eastern room of the building in which the son of the landlord was running the flour mill was of the size of 18' x 9' while the small eastern side room of House No. 524, Malviya Nagar, Allahabad was being offered as alternative accommodation in lieu of the disputed shop, When the petitioner went to take possession in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court's Order dated 6 -1 -1989, the said room was found partitioned by raising a wall of 7 1/2' height, thus leaving a small room of 8' x 6 1/2' where the Ata Chakki was installed. The petitioner also got the accommodation inspected by the Commissioner and in the report of the Commissioner, it has been stated that a fresh wall partitioning the room has been constructed of the height of 7 1/2' which has not been plastered but has only been white -washed with yellow colour.

(2.) THE landlord denied these facts and it has been alleged that the tenant in order to retain the possession of the disputed shop is lingering on the matter. The accommodation which was described in the release application was one small room in which the Chakki is installed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the averments made in the release application under Section 21 of the Act being Case No. 275 of 1982 filed as Annexure '6' to the writ petition. In paragraph 7 it has been stated: