Kanti Awasthi vs Roshan Lal and Another

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2581990 passed by the prescribed authority releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlordrespondent and the order of the appellate authority dated 65 1995 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.

The landlordrespondent No. 1 filed an application for release of the house No. 810, Sotiganj, Meerut City under the tenancy of the petitioner under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) on the ground that he bona fide needs the disputed accommodation for residential purposes. The petitioner contested'' the application. It was denied that the need of me landlord was bona fide. The prescribed authority, considering the evidence, recorded a finding that the need of the landlord was bona fide and allowed the application vide order dated 2581990. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment. The appellate authority allowed the appeal on 72 1991. Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 12196 of 1991. This Court allowed the writ petition on 2121995 and remanded the matter to the appellate authority with certain directions. The petitioner, against this judgment, filed Special Leave Petition No. 13927 of 1995 before the Supreme Court. In the meantime the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 651995 which was filed by the petitioner against the order of the prescribed authority dated 2581990. Later on the Special Leave Petition was disposed of by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 3121995 with an observation that the petitionerappellant can raise the points which he has raised in the Special Leave Petition.

I have heard Sri K.M. Dayal, Senior Counsel, for the petitioner, and Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act was filed on the ground that the landlord feels unsafe in the house No. 233, Mohanpuri, Meerut City, where he is residing. The said fear has come to an end that he is still residing and his son is residing. The prescribed authority had considered this aspect in detail and found that the need of the landlord is bona fide. Further in the context that the petitioner has offered the first floor of house No. 233, Mohanpuri, Meerut City, where the landlord was residing. The finding on the question of bona fide need taken into consideration, does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord had offered first floor of house No. 233, Mohanpuri, Meerut City, and specific averment to this effect was made in para 8 of the application made by respondent No. 1 under Section 21(l)(a) of the Act. The appellate authority on remand of the case by the High Court reduced the portion which was originally offered to the petitioner. The appellate authority, on consideration of the averment of the tenant petitioner, came to the conclusion that a portion of the first floor was sufficient for her need.

During the pendency of the writ petition respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit dated 26th August, 1997. In para 5 of the affidavit he has reaffirmed the offer of the alternative accommodation to the tenantpetitioner being house No. 233, Mohanpuri, Meerut City which is annexed as Annexure4 to the writ petition. The appellate authority had reduced the area when respondent No. 1 had offered before the appellate authority which was lesser in area. A copy of the map has been annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition.

The tenantpetitioner shall vacate the accommodation within two months provided the landlordrespondent No. 1 offers the first floor accommodation as originally offered before the prescribed authority mentioned in the plan as Annexure4 to their writ petition which is also part of the record before the prescribed authority. The appellate authority had fixed the rate of rent at Rs. 45/ for a portion of first floor but as the entire first floor is being offered the rate is fixed at Rs. 100/ per month.

The writ petition is allowed. The order of the appellate authority is modified to the extent mentioned above. The parties shall bear their own costs.