SURENDRA KUMAR BATRA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. K. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Miglani, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Shyam Lal.

(2.) The petitioner, who is the landlord, had filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for the release of the house in question for his personal need and for his family. The facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid application is that the petitioners parents were residing in the ground floor and the petitioner and his wife were residing on the first floor. In paragraph 9 of the application, it has been asserted that the house belongs to his parents. It was contended that the petitioner and his wife have no children and this had become a bone of contention of a strained relationship with his parents and between his wife and his parents also and, on account of the strained relationship, it was asserted in paragraph 11 that the parents asked him to leave their house and reside elsewhere. Accordingly, the petitioner purchased a residential house on 07th April, 1989 and, upon the expiry of three years, filed an application for the release of the house on the ground of his personal need.

(3.) In this house, the opposite party Shyam Lal was living as a tenant for several decades, who resisted the application contending that there was no personal need of the petitioner and that the need shown in the application was not bonafide. The opposite party contended that there was no requirement of any residential accommodation for the petitioner in as much as the petitioner was living happily, separately and independently on the first floor of his parents house and that the parents were living separately on the ground floor. It was also alleged that if the application was allowed, the tenant would suffer more than the petitioner in as much as the tenant would not be able to get another accommodation for the same kind of rent, which he was paying.