ABDUL WAHAB Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, MEERUT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 6-2-1974 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by the District Judge, Meerut allowing the tenant's appeal and cancelling the release order which was passed in the petitioner's favour by the prescribed Authority.

(2.) Before proceeding to deal with the facts of the case I want to make it clear that the counsel for the parties canvassed before me many important questions of law some of which had not been actually raised before respondents No. 1 and 3. However, since I felt that on the facts of the case those points emerged for consideration I permitted both parties to argue the same before me and I purpose to adjudicate upon the various questions of law posed by them.

(3.) The dispute relates to house No. 65, Purwa Jadid, Shapir Gate situate in the City of Meerut. It consists of two floors, the ground floor and the first floor. According to the averments in the petition, on the ground floor there are two living rooms, kitchen and dobari with open land and another room which is used as shop. On the first floor there is one room (over the room on the ground floor which is utilised as shop) and there is yet another room (over the kitchen and dobari on the ground floor). The respondent No. 3 is the tenant of the shop on the ground floor. The petitioner made an application for release under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), inter alia on the ground that his third son had completed his training in embroidery work and was doing embroidery work on the first floor in the room over the shop and he had to be settled in that business but the same could not be commenced for want of sufficient accommodation. It was further asserted that another son of the landlord, namely, Abdul Sattar, also wanted to start embroidery business but it was not possible for him to materialise the project unless he had adequate accommodation at his disposal. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that in the application under Section 21 of the Act it was stated that the entire building in dispute was a residential building, a portion of which on the ground floor was being used as a shop by respondent No. 3. The applicant stated in the application that he actually resided in the same house alongwith his family consisting of himself, his wife, daughters-in-law and their five children. The written statement was filed before the Prescribed Authority by respondent No. 3 denying the allegation made by the petitioner and alleging that the third son of the petitioner was also carrying on business with him, that it was false that he had to be established in some separate business along with his brother Abdul Sattar and that the alleged need of the landlord with regard to the accommodation in dispute, namely, the shop on the ground floor in the occupation of the tenant was not genuine or bonafide.