The court clarified that under Section 21(1-A) of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972, the prescribed authority is not required to consider the bonafide need of the landlord. The court also emphasized that the claim of the petitioners for being substituted as legal heirs of the deceased tenant was barred by limitation.

Mahendra Dayal, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority dated 26.09.2008 passed in Rent Control case No.6 of 1999 and the judgment and order dated 27.09.2006 passed in Rent Appeal No.14 of 2008. The release application of the petitioners filed against the opposite parties was rejected by the prescribed authority and the appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed.

2. Writ Petition No.113 (R/C) of 2007 has been filed by the tenant for setting aside the order dated 15.05.2007 passed in Rent Appeal No.69 of 2007 as well as the order dated 27.09.2006 passed in Eviction Case No.6 of 1999.

3. The petitioners of writ petition No.19 of 2010 sought release of the house, situated in Mohalla Nai Basti, District Lakhimpur. It was said that the tenants were occupying the ground floor and first floor of the house. The petitioner no.1 was in government service and retired on 31.03.1988 from the post of Chief Medical Superintendent, G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur. After his retirement, he had to vacate the official residence allotted to him and therefore he started living with his nephew at Lucknow. It was also said that he had no other house of his own in District Lakhimpur except the house in occupation of the tenants. It was also said that the landlord petitioner wanted to live in their ancestral house after the same is vacated and the petitioner no.1 wanted to start his own private clinic. The petitioners made requests to the tenants to vacate the house in their possession but they refused to do so and therefore necessity to file application for release arose.

4. The tenants-respondents contested the release application and filed their written statement. It was mainly said that the petitioner no.1 had not set up his personal need and therefore the release application was not maintainable. It was also said that the landlords had taken possession of almost half of the house by getting it vacated from the tenants. It was also said that the respondents do not belong to the same family and therefore the release application against them was not maintainable. The petitioner no.1 after retirement had taken house No.C-1102 Sector A, Mahanagar, Lucknow and had been living with his family at Lucknow. He had also established a hospital near ITI and therefore he had no need of the premises in their occupation. The petitioners did not apply for release prior to retirement and after retirement, their application was not maintainable in view of the provision of Section 21(1-A) of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972.

5. The learned prescribed authority framed two points of determination and after considering the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioners had no bonafide need of the disputed premises. While deciding point no.2, the learned prescribed authority recorded a finding that in case the respondents-tenants are asked to vacate house in their tenancy, they would suffer greater hardship. With these findings, the release application was dismissed.

6. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority, preferred Rent Appeal No.14 of 2008 which was also dismissed on 23.10.2009 and the findings recorded by the prescribed authority were confirmed.

7. The main question to be considered by this Court is as to whether the petitioners after retirement and after vacating the official residence, could maintain an application for release under Section 21(1-A) of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972. This provision for release of house is a special provision enacted for the benefit of those landlords who were in government service and who were in occupation of government accommodation and had to vacate the same after retirement. The provision of Section 21(1-A) of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972 is reproduced as under:-

[(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 2, the Prescribed Authority shall, on the application of a landlord in that behalf, orde