The court emphasized that the power of judicial review is limited and should only be exercised in cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.

1. Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shamim Ahmad and Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. The dispute relates to residential house no. 25/514 (new no. 3/11), situate in Mohalla Ganpat Sarai, District Saharanpur. Respondent no.1 Shabbir Ahmad filed an application registered as P.A. Case No. 50 of 1996, under Section 21(1)(a) of Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 1972"), before the Prescribed Authority/Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur.

3. The case set up by respondent no.1 is that building in question is owned by him, and, in the tenancy of defendants Mohd. Anwar and Akhtar both sons of Mohd. Akbar. The tenancy commenced prior to 1975. The accommodation whereat respondent no.1 was residing along with family is highly insufficient and, therefore, the building in question is required for his personal use.

4. The application was contested by defendants, filing their separate written statements. The ownership of the plaintiff respondent no.1 and tenancy of defendant no.1, i.e. petitioner was not disputed. In the additional pleas, it was stated that in 1978, the house was single storied; on the ground floor there were three rooms, in which the defendants were residing. Landlord Shabbir Ahmad entered into an agreement to sell off the accommodation in dispute to Smt. Anjuman, wife of defendant no.1, i.e., petitioner. It was also agreed that the sale deed shall be executed after obtaining permission from District Magistrate since there was a ban on transfer of urban property without prior permission of District Magistrate. However, before anything could proceed further, the house, which was quite old, fell down due to rain in 1977. The landlord, however, did not agree for reconstruction but allowed petitioner's wife to get the house reconstructed, at her own cost. Defendant no.1 obtained permission from Nagar Palika for construction of house and after sanction of map on 07.08.1978, got it reconstructed. It is said that there was also a suit for specific performance, instituted by petitioner's wife, which was decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 08.03.1982, whereagainst Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1982 preferred by Shabbir Ahmad was allowed by Civil Judge, Saharanpur vide judgment dated 09.05.1984. Thereagainst Smt. Anjuman preferred a Second Appeal No. 1574 of 1984 which is pending before this Court. Smt. Anjuman, appellant in Second Appeal pending before this Court, died on 4.7.1997, hence, the petitioner and her other heirs and legal representatives have been substituted.

5. It was also pointed out that in the year 1981, Shabbir Ahmad instituted SCC Suit No. 5 of 1981, for recovery of arrears of rent, against petitioner respondent no.2. The suit was dismissed on 30.04.1983, giving benefit of Section 20(4) of Act 1972.

6. Petitioner i.e., defendant no.1, therefore, contested the application on the ground that agreement to sell in favour of his wife Smt. Anjuman, resulted in cessation of relationship of landlord and tenant, and, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected, particularly, when newly constructed house was owned and belonged to Smt. Anjuman. Respondent no.1 can not seek ejectment of petitioner therefrom. Besides above, the landlord's claim about personal need of the house, in question was also disputed on merits.

7. Defendant no.2 (respondent no.2 in this petition), brother of petitioner, as already said, filed separate written statement. He pleaded that only upper storey of the house fell down in 1977-78, due to heavy rains, and the building remained thereafter as a single storied house, which is in possession of defendants. A lot of repairs have been carried out by defendant tenants in the building, on clear representation by the landlord that he shall not seek release of the building. There is a collusion between landlord and defendant no.1 i.e., present petitioner, fo