NASEERUDDIN Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ petition is directed against an order passed by the IVth Addl. District Judge, Meerut, dated 17.3.88 dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application filed by the landlord Amar Singh Yadav, respondent No. 3, in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly are that respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that he is the owner and landlord of the shop in dispute of which the petitioners are the tenants and that after his retirement from service, he wants the shop in dispute to start his 'parchun' business therein and that his need for the same was bonafide and genuine and greater hardship would be caused if the application for the release of the accommodation is not allowed. The application was contested by the petitioners on the ground that the need of respondent No. 3 is not bonafide and genuine and that only one of the co-owners of the disputed accommodation was not entitled to file the application without the other co-owners joining him in application, and further that the petitioners would be put to greater hardship if the application for release is allowed. The Prescribed Authority, on going through the evidence on record held that the need of respondent No. 3 for the accommodation in dispute is bonafide and genuine and that after the retirement the respondent No. 3 does require the accommodation in dispute to start his business therein to earn his livelihood and greater hardship would be caused if the release application is not allowed in his favour. Prescribed Authority held that the need of respondent No. 3 is bonafide and genuine. Regarding the question of maintainability of the application by respondent No. 3 who is one of the co-owner of the disputed accommodation, the Prescribed Authority held that the application was maintainable at his instance. On these findings the Prescribed Authority allowed the application. The petitioner feeling aggrieved went up in appeal before the IVth Addl. District Judge, respondent No. 2 in the case who also dismissed the appeal holding that the need of respondent No. 3. for the accommodation in dispute is bonafide and genuine and greater hardship would be caused if the accommodation is not released in his favour. He further held that the release application filed by respondent No. 3 who is one of the co-owners of the disputed accommodation was maintainable. Feeling aggrieved against the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition before this Court.

(3.) THE same view has been held in the case of Smt. Vatsala Nayar v. Smt. Vandana Tandon, reported in 1983(1) ARC 57 and in the case of Om Prakash Sharma v. District Judge Etah and others, reported in 1983(1) ARC 524. In view of the discussion above, it is clear that the application moved by respondent No. 3 is maintainable, he being one of the co-owners of the accommodation in dispute.