SHRI KISHAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises of the proceedings initiated by Jagannath Prasad, respondent No. 3 since deceased under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) seeking release of an accommodation which constituted a part of a three-storeyed building and had been let out to the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority vide its judgments and order, dated 16.2.1984 had allowed the aforesaid release application in part leaving a room situated in the ground floor of the building in possession of the petitioner which room was being utilised by them for business purposes. The Prescribed Authority had recorded a finding after appraisal of evidence on record that the need set up by the landlord could be satisfied by releasing the portion except the ground floor portion which was in the occupation of the petitioner tenant and that the landlord had successfully established his bonafide need in respect of the same. On the question of relative hardships, the findings recorded by the prescribed Authority was in favour of the landlord.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the order granting release the petitioner tenant preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1. The landlord also left aggrieved by that portion of the order of the Prescribed Authority where under the application for the release had been rejected so far as the ground floor portion in the occupation of the petitioner tenant was concerned and challenged the same by a separate appeal. Both these appeals were heard and disposed of by the respondent No. 1 by the common judgment, dated 8.10.86 whereunder while dismissing the appeal of the tenant, the appeal of the landlord was allowed with the result that the application for release stood granted in its entirety and the ground floor portion in dispute was also released.

(3.) I have heard B.N. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned counsel who has appeared for the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 3 who have been brought on record in his place.