GYANWATI Vs. XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the prescribed Authority (Rent Control) dated 25.10.1986 (Annexure P-4), allowing the application for eviction moved by respondent No. 3 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the order of XII Additional District Judge, Lucknow dated 20th April, 1988 (Annexure P-4) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the said order.

(2.) The application under Section 21(1)(a) was moved by respondent No.3 for the release of house No. 197, Talab Gangi Shukla, Model Houses, Lucknow which was occupied by the petitioner as a tenant. It was alleged by respondent No.3 that he is the sole owner and landlord of the said house by virtue of a partition that had taken place between him and his brother Munni Lal and the said house is bonafide needed by respondent No.3 for his personal use and occupation. The respondent No.3 who lives at present in house No. 118/136, Cantonment Road, Lucknow has alleged that this house does not have sufficient accommodation for his family members and they are put to great hardship and inconveniance. The application was contested by the petitioner on a number of grounds. However, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application under Section 23(1)(a) and directed that the disputed house be released in favour of respondent No.3 and the patitioner shall deliver vacant possession of the disputed house to respondent No.3 within two months. The learned XII Additional District Judge who heard the appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority agreed with all the findings recorded by him and dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioner to deliver possession of the disputed house to respondent No.3 within one week.

(3.) It has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the finding relating to the alleged requirement of respondent No.3 recorded by the Prescribed Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, is not correct. The Prescribed Authority has held that the family of respondent No.3 consists of himself, his wife and his three sons and three daughters and another son Siyaram and his wife. The three sons of respondent No.3 namely, Sangam Lal, Hari Krishna and Raj Kumar are aged about 24 years, 21 years and 17 years respectively and his three daughters, Km. Krishna about 19 years, Km. Renu about 25 years and Km. Sunita about 9 years. He has further held that the present requirement of respondent No.3 is to have six bed rooms, one for himself and his wife an one for Siyaram and his wife, one each for Sangam Lal and Hari Krishna, who are of marriageable age and two bed-rooms for Raj Kumar and three daughters. In addition to it, respondent No.3 also requires one kitchen room,. one store room and one drawing room. According to the Prescribed Authority, the present accommodation in occupation of respondent No.3 consists of two bed rooms, one verandah, one chhajja and open terrace in house No. 18/130 and the remaining portion of that house is used by the respondent for carrying on the business of sweet meat shop and photostate machine shop. On the basis of these facts, the Prescribed Authority has held that respondent No.3 requires additional accommodation and his requirement will be satisfied by the accommodation available in the whole of the building occupied by the petitioner. As observed earlier, this finding of the Prescribed Authority has been confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge. In my opinion, they have not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, additional accommodation is bonafide required by respondents No.3 for the personal use and occupation of his own and his family members.