MOHAMMED IDRIS MEKRANI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2-2-1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority, allowing the release application filed by the landlords-respondents 3 to 8, for release of the disputed accommodation and the order dated 15-9-1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 dismissing the Appeal against the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE petitioner is*a. tenant of house No. 74 Mohalla Khoonipur, Gorakhpur City. Respondents 3 to 7 are the landlords of the disputed accommodation and respondent No. 8 is holder of their power of attorney. THEy filed application for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the allegation that sons of respondent No. 3, namely, Shahid and Majid are living at Bhppal but they want to carry on business in Gorakhpur city and for that purpose they require the accommodation for residential purpose. Rukhshana is the daughter of respondent No. 5 Naseer Fatma. She is living in a rented house and the disputed accommodation is required for her residential purpose. Smt. Ektesadun Nisa-respondent No. 7 is living in tenanted accommodation in Gorakhpur city and she also requires the accommodation in question for residential purpose. It was further stated that. the respondents 3 and 4 who were living at Bhopal they had to visit Gorakhpur city and whenever they visit, they have to stay in some hotel. THEy require the disputed accommodation for residential purpose. It was further stated that the petitioner had purchased a house in the year 1979 in the name of his wife and sons of petitioner who were residing with the petitioner and were dependent upon him, constructed another house in Gorakhpur city, therefore, the petitioner did not require the disputed accommodation and his objection was not liable to be considered in view of explanation (i) to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged the findings recorded by the respondents 1 and 2 on the question of bona fide need. It is urged that Shahid and Majid sons of respondent No. 3 had not filed any affidavit stating that they would settle at Gorakhpur and carry on business and in absence of affidavit filed by them, the conclusion drawn by respondents 1 and 2 that they require the disputed accommodation for residential purpose is incorrect.