SHARDHA DEVI Vs. SHYAMA CHARAN TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions raise common question of law and, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. The two writ petitions arise from two applications for release of residential accommodation filed by Sri. Shyama Charan Tripathi. The dispute in these two petitions relates to House No. 2 -A Sarojini Naidu Marg, Lucknow.

(2.) Different portions of the above house were in the tenancy of Km. Shardha Devi and Smt. Sarla Devi. Shyama Charan Tripathi made separate applications in respect of the two tenaments against Km. Shardha Devi and Smt. Sarla Devi. Sri. Tripathi's case was that he was residing in a rented accommodation and order of eviction had been passed against him and therefore he required the tenaments occupied by the two tenants for his personal use. The Prescribed Authority, while disposing of the two applications together, provided that the tenament occupied by Smt. Sarla Devi shall be released in favour of the landlord and Smt. Sarla Devi shall be accommodated in the portion occupied by Km. Shardha Devi. Against this order appeals were preferred before the learned District Judge by Km. Shardha Devi as well as by Smt. Sarla Devi. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that the order of the Prescribed Authority required modification. He, however, felt that in an appeal Under Sec. 22 of the Act he could not vary or modify the order of the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, the only course open to him was to remand the case to the Prescribed Authority. After making some observations with regard to the bonafide requirement of the landlord and with regard to the manner in which the requirement of the landlord could be satisfied, he allowed the two appeals and ordered for remand of the case to the Prescribed Authority. Against this order of remand Km. Shardha Devi filed writ petition No. 1885 of 1982. The landlord Sri. Shyama Charan Tripathi has filed Writ Petition No. 2355 of 1982. Notices of the petition were issued to the respective parties. I have heard Sri. Umesh Chandra on behalf of Km. Shardha Devi and Sri. R.P. Srivastava on behalf of Smt. Sarla Devi and Sri. Puttu Lal Misra on behalf of the landlord Sri. Shyama Charan Tripathi.

(3.) The material question that arises for consideration in these two petitions is whether the learned District Judge was justified in observing that while exercising powers Under Sec. 22 of the Act he could not vary or modify the order of the Prescribed Authority. It is apparent from his order that if he were of the opinion that he could vary the order, he would have finally disposed of the appeals and would not have remanded the cases to the Prescribed Authority.