He averred in the application that since his brother had asked him to vacate his house he had taken up residence in a single room in the house of one Srivastava and was living there in great hardship and as such he wanted to recover possession of his house in its entirety failing which at least a portion of it.
A few facts may first be numbericed before the appellants companytentions are set out and examined.
After the 1947 Rent Act came to be replaced by the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act 1972 hereinafter the 1972 Rent Act , the second respondent again sought the permission of the Prescribed Authority to file a suit against the appellant but this time he sought for recovery of possession of the leased premises either fully or partially.
A Commissioner appointed by the Court had inspected the room occupied by the second respondent and found that the second respondent was faced with acute shortage of space and that the bath room and latrine were situated in the ground floor which was in the landlords occupation.
The Appellate Authority, however, differed from the Prescribed Authority and granted permission to the second respondent to recover possession of the ground floor portion of the house alone.
Thereupon the appellant moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ to quash the order of the Appellate Authority but did number meet with Success and hence this appeal by special leave.
However even in 1944, his father had leased the house to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.30 which after some years was raised to Rs.35 The house is a three storeyed building and the appellant was residing in the first and second floors and running a drug store belonging to his wife in the ground floor.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.76 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
94 A in Hewett Road, Allahabad under a gift deed executed in his favour by his mother in 1945.
1201 of 1976.
12204 of 1975.
Appellant in person.
The Prescribed Authority refused to grant permission on the ground the application had been made within a period of six months from the companymencement of the 1972 Rent Act and hence it was barred by Rule 18 1 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Rules, 1972 hereinafter the Rules .
Dileep Tandon and R.B. Mehrotra for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave by a tenant is directed against the dismissal of Civil Miscellaneous Writ No 12204 of 1975 by the High Court of Allahabad.
Admittedly, the second respondent became the owner of the leased premises in the year 15145 under a gift settlement made by his mother and except the leased building he has numberother house.
