SHANTI DEVI Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREMISES No.113/119, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar is the subject matter of dispute which is presently in occupation of the petitioner being the tenant. The contesting respondent no.1 is its landlord. He was serving in the Steel Plant at Durgapur (State of West Bengal) on the post of senior manager and was provided with Category-VI Type House No.1/10, Vivekanand Road, Durgapur. He was due to retire on 31st of May, 2000 on attaining the age of superannuation. Sensing his retirement, he filed an application under sections 21(1)(a) and 21(1-A) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act No.13 of 1972 against the petitioner for release of the accommodation in question on the pleas inter alia that he requires the said accommodation for use of his family on the ground that he is to retire in near future and will settle at Kanpur in his own house and that presently he is in occupation of a public building in connection with his employment in Durgapur Steel Plant. Notice of the application was issued to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority but no objection or written statement was filed and the matter proceeded exparte. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 3.7.1998 dismissed the said release application on the ground that presently the landlord and his family are not residing at Kanpur and as such, there is no immediate need for getting the tenanted accommodation released. The release application, according to the prescribed authority, was filed on the ground of expected need, there being not immediate need.

(2.) THE above order was challenged by way of appeal which was marked as rent appeal No.124 of 1998. THE court below by the impugned order dated 18th of April, 2003 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and released the disputed accommodation in favour of the contesting respondent no.2.

(3.) SHRI M.B. Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that no notice was served on the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority and the release application was decided ex-parte though in his favour. He further submits that during the pendency of the appeal itself, the landlord himself filed an application that the matter be remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases and the said application remained pending. In any case, no opportunity for hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the trial court and as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed. SHRI Ravi Kant, the learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, submits that the release application was filed under section 21(1-A) of the Act wherein only two requirements are to be established for getting the tenanted accommodation released. Firstly, that the landlord of the building was in occupation of public building for residential purposes. Secondly, that he had to vacate on account of cessation of his employment. There being no dispute that the landlord was in occupation of public buildings for residential purposes and that he has vacated it due to his retirement, no interfere in the present writ petition is called for.