FEEROZ BANO Vs. VLLTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 7-12-1989 passed by Respondent No. 1 allowing the appeal and releasing the dis puted accommodation in favour of landlord-Respondent No. 3.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Saeed Ahmad was tenant of the disputed accommodation consisting of two rooms measuring 12' x 9' and 15' x 10' of which respondent No. 2 is the landlord. Respon dent No. 2 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) against the tenant on the allegation that the dis puted accommodation was let out to Saeed Ahmad when he was minor but now he has become major and wants to do inde pendent business of fitter and turner and he has got experience of the same. The tenant is running coaching classes where about 20 children come to get tuition but the tenant has got his own house in Mohalla Ali Agangran where he can run his coaching school on the ground floor after raising construction on the first floor of his residence. The application was con tested by late Saeed Ahmad. He alleged that he is teaching about 40 children in the day and 40 children in the evening in the accommodation in dispute which is his source of livelihood. It was further stated that the landlord has godown bearing number 11/2575/2 and there is a big Plot No. 11/2661/1 situated opposite to the ac commodation in dispute in which the joint business is being carried on by the landlord and others. The Prescribed Authority found that the need of the landlord was bona fide but rejected the application while considering the comparative hardship. Respondent No. 2 filed appeal against this order. The appellate authority allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 7-12-1989 holding that the need of Respondent No. 2 is bona fide and genuine and he would suffer a greater hardship in case the application is rejected.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the appellate authority made a local in spection and prepared a report Paper No. 65-C. The petitioner has not filed copy of the said report. The appellate authority observed in his order that these accom modations were not vacant. In both the places goods of wood work were found. In between these two premises the space was being utilised for residential purposes. The brother of Respondent No. 2 was mar ried in the year 1989 and he along with his wife was residing therein.