HEERA LAL Vs. IXTH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Lalta Prasad and Babu Singh respectively on the ground of bona fide need, under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Regulation Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). Each tenant is independent tenant of one room. At the time of filing the release application landlord was residing in a room in between the two rooms in tenancy occupation of each of the two tenants. Release application was registered as Rent Case No. 61 of 1983 on the file of Prescribed Authority/IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur. The release application was filed under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 6.4.1985 allowed the release application only under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act and rejected the same under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act by holding that building was in dilapidated condition but landlord did not bona fidely require the same. Against the said judgment and order two appeals were filed one by landlord numbered as Rent Appeal No. 31 of 1987 and the other by tenants numbered as Rent Appeal No. 69 of 1985. Both the appeals were heard together by IXth A.D.J., Kanpur. IXth A.D.J. through judgment and order dated 21.10.1987 allowed the appeal of the tenant and dismissed the appeal of the landlord. The result of the said judgment was that release application of the landlord filed under both the provisions stood completely dismissed. The said judgment is being challenged by the landlord through this writ petition.

(2.) During pendency of the writ petition Babu Lal-respondent No. 3 vacated the room in his tenancy occupation and handed over the possession of the same to the landlord. He has also not engaged any counsel.

(3.) The Prescribed Authority found that the family of the landlord consisted of eleven members. However, his need was denied on the ground that he was also having a tenanted house. Commissioner had reported that the accommodation of one room situate in between the two tenanted accommodations and which was in possession of the landlord was not in living condition. The Prescribed Authority after recording the said fact held that : At the same time it could not be denied that he had no further accommodation at his disposal.