A few facts may first be numbericed before the appellants companytentions are set out and examined.
However, even in 1944, his father had leased the house to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.
It is also an admitted fact that when the first application for permission to sue was made, the second respondent was living with his brother but subsequently he had to move out of that house and take up residence in a single room in a building belonging to one Srivastava.
Some years later the second respondents father leased out an adjacent building also to the appellant for being used for the drug store business.
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.
In 1967 it became necessary for the second respondent to seek recovery of possession of the house because his elder brother, with whom he was living, asked him to find accommodation elsewhere.
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.
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.
30 which after some years was raised to Rs.
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.
The house is a three strayed 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.
94 A in Hewett Road, Allahabad under a gift deed executed in his favour by his mother in 1945.
12204 of 1975 by the High Court of Allahabad.
The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on November 10, 1967.
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.
Therefore the second respondent applied for permission under Section 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Rent Act to the Prescribed Authority to file a suit for eviction against the appellant on the ground of urgent and reasonable requirement of the house for his own occupation.
The second respondent became the owner of a house bearing Municipal No.
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 .
Admittedly, the second respondent became the owner of the leased premises in the year 1945 under a gift settlement made by his mother and except the leased building he has numberother house.
Natarajan, J. This appeal by special leave by a tenant is directed against the dismissal of Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.
