VARAND MAL Vs. GOPAL DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's writ petition arising out of proceedings under Sec. 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is directed against the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority dated 20-11-1973 and 30-8-1974 respectively (Annexure 3 and 4 to the writ petition).

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was a tenant of a portion of House No. 109/423, Nehru Nagar, Kanpur at Rs. 130.00 per month of which the respondent No. 1 Gopal Dass is the owner/landlord. The aforesaid respondent made an application for eviction of the petitioner from the house in dispute under Sec. 21 of the Act claiming that he was the owner of the disputed house and the Karta of the joint family consisting of his own family and his nephews, and the accommodation in dispute was required by the family for residential purposes. The application was resisted by the petitioner on a number of grounds which would be referred to in the latter part of this order. The Prescribed Authority, however, by its order dated 20-11-1973 partly allowed the application under Sec. 21 and held that the respondent No. 1 was the sole owner of the disputed house and that he should get some portion in the house with the result that two rooms and a verandah on the south were ordered to be released in his favour. Both parties preferred appeals against the order of the Prescribed Authority. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 30-8-1974 allowed the landlord's appeal and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. In other words, the landlord's application tinder Sec. 21 of the Act was allowed 'in toto'. In these circumstances two orders have been challenge by means of this writ petition.

(3.) This case was heard on several dates in the past and a number of important questions of law were canvassed before me on behalf of the parties but before the case concluded the Legislature intervened and the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 was passed. Today when the hearing of the case commended the amendment has become an accomplished fact and the Act has received the sanction of the President. In these circumstances the case acquires a now complexion and in fact the problem has been very much simplified and the vexed questions of law need not be gone into. The matter can now be disposed of on a short point.