The High Court thereafter dismissed the writ petition of the tenant against the orders of the Prescribed Authority for eviction and the order of the Additional District Judge.
The Prescribed Authority on 7th of July, 198 1 held that the second application under section 2 1 1 a read with section 43 2 rr of the new Act being Case No.
On 3rd of August, 1978 a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad allowed the appeal of respondent No.
It was alleged that on 18th of December, 1978 respondent No.
On 10th of November, 1979, the Prescribed Authority rejected the petitioners application for substitution and held that respondent No.
Madhu Soni.
Madhu Soni wife of Shri D.K. Soni son of Shri Harbans Lal Soni the then tenant.
It also recited that a portion of the said land which was demarcated in the site plan measuring about 121 x 101.5 of the vendor which would be for the companystruction of a house would be in exclusive possession of the vendor and the rest of the property at 8, Panna Lal Road, Allahabad being the disputed premises would be sold to Smt.
l sent a letter of companydolence to the appellant on the death of appellants father.
1 moved an application under section 21 read with section 43 2 rr of the new Act.
Madhu Soni.
On 12th of December, 1978 the father of the present appellant Shri H.L. Soni who was the original tenant died leaving behind his widow and two sons including the appellant and one daughter.
1 had full knowledge of the death of Shri H.L. Soni and he did number move the application within time.
It was further agreed that the parties would move the proper authorities as early as possible for permission to transfer and the sale deed would be executed within one month of the grant of the permission and numberice to the vendee.
The Additional District Judge, Allahabad on 25th of October, 1982 dismissed the appeal of the tenant filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 7th of July, 1981.
On 12th of November, 1971 the Commissioner allowed the revision filed by respondent No.
53 of 1978 for bringing on record the heirs of deceased Shri H.L. Soni along with application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
On 11th of March, 1983 the appellants wife Smt.
It is material to refer to the said agreement in brief.
1 and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 7th of February, 1975 and upheld the orders of the Commissioner and the State Government allowing the eviction of the tenant.
On 2nd of August, 1972 the State Government rejected the representation of the tenant namely, the father of the appellant filed under section 7 of the old Act against the order of the Commissioner dated 2nd of November, 1971.
The agreement is dated as mentioned hereinbefore 7th of November, 1978 and was entered into between Shri P.K. Mukerjee, the landlord and Smt.
In September, 1978 respondent No.
1 moved a second application under section 2 1 1 a read with section 43 2 rr of the new Act on the same ground on which the first application was moved.
Initially injunction was granted ex parte by the Trial Court and thereafter it was vacated after hearing respondent No.
68 of 1979.
3 of 1947 Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act , hereinafter referred to as the old Act, seeking permission to file the suit for eviction of the tenant, the father of the appellant herein, on the ground that accommodation in dispute was bona fide required by the landlord for his personal need.
1 from dispossessing her from the premises in dispute on the strength of registered agreement and she asserted that she resided in the accommodation as a result of part performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
On 11th of December, 1979 respondent No.
From the Judgment and order dated 18.5.1983 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No.
It is alleged further that on 12th of March, 1981 respondent No.
1 had executed an agreement to sell the disputed premises in favour of the appellants wife namely, Smt.
In September, 1971 the Rent Control and Eviction officer rejected the application of the landlord and held that his requirement was number bona fide.
On that basis the parties had signed agreement on 7th November, 1978.
It was clearly stipulated that the need of the vendor for the premises still subsisted and this agreement was being entered into since it would be possible for the vendor to companystruct a house for himself on the land number agreed to be transferred measuring 121 x 101.5 .
Thereafter it is alleged that respondent No.
The second application was registered as Case No.
It was further provided that in the event of number execution of the sale deed on account of any act or failure on the part of the vendee in pursuance of the agreement to sell, the property would stand released in favour of the vendor and the earnest money of Rs.5,000 would be forfeited.
Madhu Soni in which the High Court had stayed dispossession.
68 of 1979 was within time and directed the tenant to be evicted from the premises in dispute.
1 moved an application for substitution in Case No.
1 herein had filed an application under section 3 of the U.P. Act No.
On 23rd of March, 1979 respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was stated that the landlord had filed an application against Shri H.L. Soni the father in law of vendee for permission to file a suit for eviction against him on account of his personal need for the aforesaid premises and permission had been granted.
1,00,000 out of which Rs.5,000 was paid as earnest money and it was stipulated that the rest of the money would be paid at the time of the registration.
Madhu Soni filed a suit for injunction restraining Respondent No.
A review petition was filed by the appellant and the same was dismissed.
The property was sold for Rs.
On 22nd of December, 1978 appellant informed the Prescribed Authority before whom the application under section 2 1 1 a of the new Act red with section 43 2 rr was pending about the death of Shri H.L Soni.
Shri P.K. Mukerjee, respondent No.
It also recited that the vendee or his family members would have numberright of whatsoever nature and the vendee, that is to say, the appellant had given up his tenancy right in respect of the same, that is to say, the portion to be kept with the vendor and the premises will be built on the vacant land with the money that would be obtained by selling the property to Smt.
6626 of 1983.
H N. Kacker and R.B. Mehrotra for the Appellant.
D. Agarwala and Miss Asha Rani for the Respondents.
1 against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction officer dated 5th of September, 1971.
It was further stated that if the vendee failed to get the sale deed executed after one month from the date of permission and numberice to the vendee by the vendor, the earnest money of Rs.5,000 would be forfeited and the right of the vendor would be as it subsisted prior to the agreement.
1 executed two separate agreements to sell the property in dispute in favour of R.P. Kanodia and P.K. Kanodia respectively.
It may be mentioned that on 15th of July, 1972 the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the new Act came into effect.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by the tenant against an order upholding the order of eviction.
The appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 18th of May, 1983 and also against the order dated 23rd of May, 1983 dismissing a review application by the said High Court.
13741 of 1982.
Aggrieved thereby an appeal was filed by Smt.
The ground of eviction was on the landlords bona fide need and requirement.
On or about 7th of February, 1975 the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad allowed the writ petition of the tenant and set aside the orders of the Commissioner and the State Government hereinbefore mentioned.
