R K MATHUR Vs. RAJENDRA MOHAN MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order dated 21-7-1986 passed by the First Addl. Civil Judge, Lucknow, and contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, setting aside an earlier order dated 27-2-1985 of the Prescribed Authority under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, contained in Annexure-4 to the petition, whereby the application under section 21 of the Act by opposite party No. 1, was dismissed.

(2.) HOUSE No. 510/133 New-Hyderabad, Lucknow, was held by petitioner R. K. Mathur as a tenant for a very long time, originally let out by Radhey Mohan Mathur the brother of opposite party No. 1 Rajendra Mohan Mathur. In course of time, opposite party No. 1 claimed to be the owner-landlord and filed an application under section 21 (I-A) of the Act for release of the house in his favour on the ground that he had to vacate a public building which he was occupying for residential purposes because he was to retire from service on 31-7-1983. Annexure A-1 is the copy of the application. In para 1 of the application he described that he is the owner-landlord of the house of which the present petitioner is the tenant, that he was occupying Public Premises no. DG 947, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, as Section Officer in the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, New Delhi, but since he retired from that service on 31-7-1983, he was liable to vacate the premises. In para 5 he said that he had no other accommodation except the one in dispute, and, therefore, he was entitled to have it vacated from the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned Prescribed Authority in bis judgment dated 27-2-1985, Copy Annexure-4, held that it was not possible to accept the contention of opposite party No. 1 that he had obtained the house by means of a family settlement because there was no document to establish it. He observed that the family settlement, if any, required registration under the Indian Registration Act, and that it was not possible to accept the oral testimony of opposite party No. 1 in this regard. He also found that there was no document of proof of purchase of the house by opposite party No. 1, and that in view of the tenancy by allotment describing Radhey Mohan Mathur to be the landlord, the application under section 21 (1-A) of the Act was liable to be dismissed. Alternatively, he held that even if opposite party no. 1 got the house by family settlement, he was bound to give notice to the petitioner under section 21 of the Act. He lastly observed that it was futile for opposite party No. 1 to contend that while his wife would remain in employment at Delhi, he would live all alone in Lucknow and, therefore, so long as his wife has residential accommodation in Delhi by virtue of her employment, opposite party No. 1 has no necessity for the disputed house. On this ground the learned Prescribed Authority dismissed the application.