Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- This is an appeal by the tenant against an order upholding the order of eviction. The ground of eviction was the landlords bona fide need and requirement. The appeal rises out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dt. 18th May, 1983 : (Reported in 1987 All U 954) and also against the order dt. 23rd May, 1983 dismissing a review application by the said High Court. Shri P. K. Mukherjee, respondent 1 herein had filed an application under S. 3 of the U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947 (Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act), hereinafter referred to as the old Act, seeking permission to file the suit for eviction of the tenant, the father of the appellant herein, on the ground that accommodation in dispute was bona fide required by the landlord for his personal need. In September, 1971 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the landlord and held that his requirement was not bona fide. On 12th Nov., 1971 the Commissioner allowed the revision filed by respondent 1 against the order-of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 5th Sept., 1971. It may be mentioned that on 15th July, 1972 the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to the new Act came into effect. On 2nd Aug., 1972 the State Government rejected the representation of the tenant namely, the father of the appellant filed under S. 7 of the old Act against the order of the Commissioner dated 2nd Nov., 1971. On or about 7th Feb., 1975) the learned single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad allowed the writ petition of the tenant and set aside the orders of the Commissioner and the State Government hereinbefore mentioned. On 3rd Aug. 1978 a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad allowed the appeal of respondent 1 and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court dated 7th Feb., 1975 and upheld the orders of the Commissioner and the State Government allowing the eviction of the tenant. In Sept., 1978 respondent 1 moved an application under S. 21 read with S. 43(2)(rr) of the new Act. Thereafter it is alleged that respondent 1 had executed an agreement to sell the disputed premises in favour of the appellants wife namely, Smt. Madhu Soni. It is material to refer to the said agreement in brief. The agreement is dated as mentioned hereinbefore 7th Nov., 1978 and was entered into between Shri P. K. Mukerjee, the landlord and Smt. Madhu Soni wife of Shri D. K. Soni (son of Shri Harbans Lal Soni) the then tenant. It was stated that the landlord had filed an application against Shri H. L. Soni the father-in-law of vendee for permission to file a suit for eviction against him on account of his personal need for the aforesaid premises and permission had been granted. It also recited that a portion of the said land which was demarcated in the site plan measuring about 121 x 101.5 of the vendor which would be for the construction of a house would be in exclusive possession of the vendor and the rest of the property at 8, Panna Lal Road, Allahabad being the disputed premises would be sold to Smt. Soni. It also recited that the vendee or his family members would have no right of whatsoever nature and the vendee, that is to say, the appellant had given up his tenancy right in respect of the same, that is to say, the portion to be kept with the vendor and the premises will be built on the vacant land with the money that would be obtained by selling the property to Smt. Madhu Soni. The property was sold for Rs. 1,00,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- was paid as earnest money and it was stipulated that the rest of the money would be paid at the time of the registration. It was further agreed that the parties would move the proper authorities as early as possible for permission to transfer and the sale deed would be executed within one month of the grant of the permission and notice to the vendee. It was further stated that if the vendee