Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- In the administration of justice process often makes a mockery of the purpose. This appeal is an example of the same.

2. This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 26th September, 1984. The question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to take advantage of the procedure under S. 24-C, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, as amended from time to time (hereinafter called the said Act) in respect of the first-floor of House No. 217-218 Machhli Bazar, Sadar, Meerut Cantonment, of which the appellant is the owner and the landlord. The first-floor of the said building was in the tenancy of respondent 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. The appellant was at the relevant time posted as Superintendent, Military Farm, Meerut Contonment. In that capacity he was allotted Government quarter No. 47 belonging to the Union of India. On 8th November, 1979 he was given a notice to vacate the Government quarter by the Deputy Assistant Director intimating that since the appellant had his own house at Meerut Cantonment, he should vacate the government quarter allotted to him by the order dated 8th August, 1979. In view of that the appellant moved an application under S. 24-C of the said Act. It is the case of the appellant that he owns no other house except the one involved in the present appeal. Section 24-B(l) of the said Act which gives the right to move under S. 24-C of the said Act provides as follows :

"S. 24-B . (1) : Where a landlord who, being a person in occupation of any residential public building is required, by, or in pursuance of, any general or special order made by the Government or other authority concerned, to vacate such building, or in default, to incur certain obligations, on the ground that he owns, in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, a residential building either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such order, to such landlord, a right to recover immediately possession of any building let out by him :

Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring a right on a landlord owning, in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, two or more dwelling houses, whether in his own name or in the name of any member of his family, to recover the possession of more than one dwelling house and it shall be lawful for such landlord to indicate the dwelling house, possession of which he intends to recover."

3. In this appeal we are not concerned with other sub-sections and other provisos of the said section.

4. The said application was contested by the tenant on number of grounds including the ground that the accommodation in the possession of the appellant was sufficient to accommodate his family members. By an order dated 17th August, 1981, the application of the appellant was allowed by the Delegated Authority. He held that the appellant was in the government service and he was due to retire on 30th June, 1980 and he had moved an application under the provisions of S. 24B for getting his house vacated and getting possession of the same. It was further held by him that in this house there was a joint latrine which created difficulty for the appellant. Therefore the appellant had prayed that the possession of the first-floor of the house in dispute should be delivered to him at an early date. On this, notice having been given to the respondent, he stated in his counter that the application was not maintainable and had further contended that the present proceedings under S. 24-C of the Act could not be taken, according to him, because the appellant did not need any residential accommodation whereas the tenant-objector and respondent in this case was a poor man and had no other house.

5. It was contended before the Delegated Authority that the applicant-landlord had two