(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner who is a tenant in a residential accommodation seeks to challenge the validity of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated September 26, 1984 contained in Annexure 6 passed under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the orders of the Third Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh dated September 29, 1987 passed in appeal.
(2.) THE dispute related to house No. 193 situate in Mohalla Begam Ward in the town of Pratapgarh. This house was, admittedly, in the tenancy of the petitioner for the last over 20 years. It was purchased by opposite party No. 3 on 11.9.1978 for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. He gave a notice to the petitioner on 27.4.1981 requiring him to vacate this premises seeking order for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of the accommodation required bonafide for him and his family members. The petitioner filed his written statement on 10.5.1982 opposing the application on the ground that the landlord was posted as Accountant in the District of Sultanpur and that his wife and their children are living comfortably in the adjoining house No. 194 in Mohalla Begam Ward and that he (tenant) had no other accommodation to live and he will be put to great hardship of evicted from this accommodation. It appears that at the instance of the landlord, a Commission was issued to an Advocate Commissioner to prepare map of the two houses and who submitted a detailed report dated April 5, 1983 giving out the accommodation available in the two houses and the occupation and use thereof by the two parties. Upon consideration of the affidavits exchanged between the parties and the report of the Advocate Commissioner, learned Prescribed Authority found the need of the landlord genuine and directed eviction of the petitioner from the accommodation in question. Three months time was allowed to him to vacate the same. In appeal, learned Additional District Judge by his judgment dated September 29, 1987 upheld the finding of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority and held that the need of the landlord for this accommodation for his own use and that of his family members was genuine. On that basis, the appeal was dismissed.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record. At the time of the filing of the application under Section 21 of the Act, the petitioner was posted in District Sultanpur. During the pendency of the proceedings, he has been transferred to Lalganj as an Accountant in the Medical Department. Lalganj is a small town within District Sultanpur and according to him this is only half an hour's journey from Pratapgarh and that he goes to Lalganj every morning and comes back in the evening and is staying in house No. 194. His family besides him and his wife consists of four sons, the eldest being of 23 years followed by the sons aged 20, 17 and 15 years. Landlord's wife is, admittedly, a teacher and as per the assertion of the landlord they have to engage a whole time maid-servant for cooking purposes and some accommodation has to bee earmarked for her use. The house in which the landlord opposite party is living at present is their family house belonging to his father who was alive at the time of the filing of the petition under Section 21 of the Act and has since died. The ownership of the house now besides his, is of his mother and brother is posted at Jaunpur. According to him the wife of his brother occasionally comes to live in this house and one room was permanently locked by him and after the death of his father, his brother is claiming exclusive possession over three rooms as co-owners of the house. According to the landlord relations of his wife with his step mother are very strained and all the more necessitating them to live separately. It has been found as fact that there are separate kitchens; one of the family of the landlord and the other of his mother. Learned Prescribed Authority and the appellate Court have come to the conclusion that the brother of the landlord also comes to stay in the house, more so when he has also become co-owner of the property. The landlord is keeping a cow and some accommodation is needed for the cow and for keeping the fodder. In the counter-affidavit filed by the landlord, opposite party in this writ petition it has been stated that his two sons have already become major and they are to be married in the near future. As the legal position is, developments subsequent to the filing of the application under Section 21 of the Act can be raised and considered.