UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. ZAFAR IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.5.2002 as contained in Annexure-1 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Prescribed Authority Case No. 2/96 and the order dated 10.11.2003 as contained in Annexure-2 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lucknow dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant in a portion on the First floor of premises No. 31/37 known as premises No. 14, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow on behalf of the opposite party No. 1, Shri Zafar Ibrahim. The Prescribed Authority under U. P. Urban Building Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1972') has allowed the application for release of the disputed premises under Section 21 on the ground that the landlord opposite party No. 1 has no other accommodation in the city of Lucknow and he desires to live in Lucknow after his retirement from the post of Director General, Police in Patna. The learned Prescribed Authority has also held that need of the landlord is the bona fide and on comparative hardship, it has been held that the landlord shall suffer the greater hardship if the release application is rejected than the hardships caused to the petitioner if the release application is allowed. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the U. P. Urban Building Act, 1972 and this Rent Appeal No. 34/2002 has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by giving the benefit of the provision under Section 21 (1A) of the Act, 1972. It is against these two judgments, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) There are certain admitted facts between the parties. These admitted facts are that the opposite party No. 1 is the landlord of the disputed premises which is in possession of the petitioner for residential as well as for non-residential purposes. The opposite party No. 1 was the Director General, Police (Vigilance) in Patna and he retired on 28,2.1993. Before his retirement from the above post, the opposite party No. 1 was keeping a public building for residential purpose which had been provided to him as a condition of his service. After his retirement on 28.2.1993, the opposite party No. 1 vacated the public building in his occupation for residential purposes as D.G.P. (Vigilance) on 31.8.1993 and thereafter he started living with his wife in a building taken on rent by her. The wife of the opposite party No. 1 was also in service at that time and now she has also retired in January. 1998 and both husband and wife are residing in a private building taken on rent in Patna. Opposite party No. 1 moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) which was registered at P. A. Case No. 26/90. It was dismissed in default. Later on a fresh application under Section 21 (1A) of the Act, 1972 was moved on 4.7.1996 (Annexure-5). In this application it was alleged on behalf of the landlord that he has retired from the Government service and he and his wife require the accommodation in dispute to shift to Lucknow and use the accommodation in dispute for residential as well as commercial purpose. A portion in the back of the disputed premises was given to Shri Shoeb Usmani after the death of the mother of the landlord with the understanding that he will vacate the same whenever the landlord would come back to Lucknow to reside permanently.