GOPINATH GOEL Vs. FIRST ADDL DIST JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, had come up in the first instance, before a learned single Judge, K. C. Agarwal, J. The order of reference made by his Lordship reads thus:- "The question raised by the learned counsel for the parties is, in my opinion, of general importance and is likely to arise in a number of other petitions, and as my judgment could not be a subject-matter of appeal to a Division Bench, it appears appropriate to refer this case to a larger Bench for deciding the following questions : 1. Whether the irrebuttable presumption incorporated in Explanations (ii) and (iv) of S. 21 is of substantive law or procedure expressed in presumptive form?

(2.) WHETHER S. 14 (2) of U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 deleting Explanations (ii) and (iv) is retrospective in operation?

(3.) THE landlord had made an application under sub-s. (1) of S. 21 of the Act for eviction of the tenant from a part of the house bearing Nos. 226 and 228 Dalampara, Meerut City, and for release of the accommodation in her (the landlord's) favour. Her case was that she was residing in a part of that house, that the tenant was occupying the remaining part thereof and that she needed the entire house for her own occupation since the portion in her occupation was insufficient for her large family. THE tenant disputed the landlord's claim that she bona fide needed additional accommodation. He pleaded that he would be put to great hardship and inconvenience if he should be evicted from the portion of the building he was occupying.