MOHD ASLAM Vs. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the judgment and order dated 2.2.1991 passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Rent Control Appeal No. 50 of 1990, Sri Zafar Jalil and Ors. v. Mohd. Aslam and Ors., whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 8.8.1990 was set aside and released application of the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was rejected.

(2.) The petitioner is the landlord and owner of premises situate in Mohalla Kaya Ki Berian Machhali Bazar, Moradabad, Hakik Khalil Ahmad father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had died on 16/17.10.1986 and thereafter the Respondents 2 to 4 were continuing as tenant of the petitioner. The house in question is a double storey house, on the ground floor the petitioner was in occupation and on the first floor there were two tenants. Municipal Board, Moradabad, was tenant of one party of the first floor and the remaining part of first floor was in possession of the respondents 2 to 4. The family of the petitioners having grown bigger, there was paucity of accommodation and in view of the fact that the Respondents 2 to 4 had constructed another house in the same city, the petitioner filed an application for release of the premises in his favour and for use and occupation of his family members. It was registered as P.A. Case No. 19 of 1989. The said application was contested by the respondents 2 to 4. The Prescribed Authority, vide judgment dated 8.8.1990 came to the conclusion that the respondents 2 to 4 have acquired another accommodation in the same city, the objection of the respondents 2 to 4 could not be entertained in view of the Explanation (i) of Section 21 (1) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority, further found that the need set up by the petitioner was bona fide and accordingly allowed the application. Against the judgment and order dated 8.8.1990, the tenant respondent 2 to 4 filed Rent Control Appeal No. 50 of 1990. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 2.2.1991 although confirmed the finding regarding the applicability of the Explanation (i) of Section 21 (1) of the Act but recorded the findings that the petitioner could not establish bona fide need and accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the prescribed Authority. Consequently, the application for release filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Sri P.K. Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. In so far as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned they have not put in appearance and they have not filed counter-affidavit despite sufficient notice having been served upon them. Despite repeated notice having been sent in the years 1992, 1995 and 1996 they have failed to put in appearance and contest the petition. In the circumstances, the petition is being proceeded ex parte against respondent Nos. 2 to 4.