Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J.

Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate for the respondent.

Factual Matrix of the Case

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.10.2003 passed by the Addl. District Judge / IIIrd Fast Track Court, Dehradun (Appellate Authority) by which R.C.A. No. 87 of 1998 has been allowed releasing the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord (respondent). Prescribed Authority, vide judgment dated 12.05.1998, dismissed the release application of the landlord and the Appellate Court, on an appeal filed by landlord, set aside the judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application.

Bonafide Need

3. Briefly stated, the respondent has filed a release application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 62 of 1997 praying for the release of the residential premises, under the tenancy of petitioner, situated at 30 Dilaram Bazar, Dehradun.

4. According to the case of the respondent (landlord), the petitioner is the tenant of the said premises at the rate of Rs. 31.37 /- per month. The respondent has further stated in the release application that he was working in the Railway Workshop and now he is retired ad he is getting only Rs. 2200 /- as pension. It was further stated that besides the premises in dispute, the respondent (landlord) is having a joint property with one Balbir Singh in which three small rooms are in his possession. The family of the respondent consists of self, his wife Smt. Urmila and two sons namely Sunil and Anil. His son Anil has got married on 11.10.1997 and he is employed in Regional Manager, Pharmaceuticals. Respondent’s other son Sunil is also working in Pharmaceuticals as Sales Executive and he is also going to be married shortly as was stated in the release application. Apart from this, respondent is having two daughters, who are married. It was stated by the respondent (landlord) in the release application that both his daughters used to visit Dehradun along with their husbands and other family members and therefore, the respondent requires sufficient accommodation to accommodate them.

5. Respondent (landlord) has further stated in his release application that the family of the petitioner (tenant) consists of self, his wife, two sons and his widow daughter in law. It was stated that the petitioner has constructed a house in Arya Nagar, Dehradun and his widow daughter in law is living separately. Besides this, petitioner has constructed another house at Rajpur Road, Dehradun in which his son Rajesh is living and his other son Vijay is living in the disputed premises along with his parents. The houses which the petitioner has constructed at Arya Nagar and Rajpur Road are very big and the petitioner can easily shift himself to one of those houses. It has further been stated in the release application that the petitioner has retired from ONGC and he is running a General Store from which he is earning Rs. 20,000 /- per month. It was, therefore, prayed in the release application by the respondent (landlord) that the accommodation, which is under the tenancy of the petitioner (tenant), may be released in favour of the respondent (landlord) for fulfilling his own requirement.

6. The petitioner (tenant) has filed a written statement denying the averments made in the release application. The petitioner has not denied that he has already got constructed a house for his son Rajesh in Rajpur Road, Dehradun Paragraph 32 of the written statement filed by the petitioner is quoted below:

ß32- ;g fd lEifÙk la[;k 93 iqjkuk uañ 168@44 jktiqj jksM+ ¼fnykjke cktkj½ nsgjknwu esa Hkwry ij ,d nqdku o mlds ihNs ,d xksnke gS ftlesa foi{kh dk iq= jkts”k dqekj lksy izksijkbVj ds :i esa xqIrk tujy LVksj ds uke ls viuk dkjksckj djrk gS rFkk nqdku ds Åij vkoklh; Hkou esa jkts”k dqekj mldh iRuh o nks cPps