KRISHNA CHANDRA PURWAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this landlord's petition directed against refusal to release the premises under Sec. 16 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 the short question that arises for consideration is if the order is based on relevant consideration. But before examining the order it may be mentioned that in consequence to declaration of vacancy and reaction of release application the premises have been allotted in favour of opposite party No. 4 who has entered into possession as well. It is however unnecessary to examine correctness of this order as it cannot be disputed that its continuance of otherwise depends on the order by which application for release has been rejected. If that order cannot be maintained the order of allotment cannot obviously stand. For examining correctness of order rejecting release application suffice it to mention that premises were declared vacant by Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 18th December 1979. Consequently petitioner filed an application for release which has been rejected by the two authorities and it has been held that need of petitioner was not bona fide only because six or seven months before the order was passed a part of house No. 80 Arabpur which was jointly owned by petitioner with his brothers had been let -out. The revising authority held that if need of petitioner would have been genuine and he needed more accommodation for himself then this portion would not have been let -out. To say the least the consideration was irrelevant and factually incorrect as well as according to supplementary affidavit filed in this court this house belongs to petitioner's brothers. And even if it is assumed for a moment that it is jointly owned by petitioner and his brothers then merely because one of the portions had been let -out it cannot be said that need of petitioner for release of his own house was not genuine. The authorities should have applied their mind to the materials on record to come to an independent finding if claim of petitioner that be needed the premises in dispute was bona fide or not. It could not have been rejected because a portion of joint family house was let -out. As the order is baaed on irrelevant considerations, it cannot be maintained.

(2.) In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 27th October 1980 passed by District Judge and order dated 16th May 1980 passed by District Supply Officer/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, are quashed. Rent Control and Eviction Officer is further directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law. Application shall be disposed off expeditiously. Opposite party No. 5 has admittedly taken over possession in consequence of allotment therefore, he shall continue as such till the application is not decided by Rent Control and Eviction Officer.