HARSHADA P. WORAH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, plaintiff has sought quashing of judgment and order dated 6th of May, 2002 passed by learned District Judge, Dehradun, in Rent Control Appeal No. 107/2000.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as narrated in the petitioner are that the petitioner (landlord) moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, for release of the accommodation in question situated at Mussoorie, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 10 of 1990 by the Prescribed Authority, Dehradun. The accommodation in question consists of two rooms with separate kitchen, two bathrooms and two servants quarters in the tenancy and occupation of the respondents No. 2 to 4 of the petition. It is alleged in 'the petition that the petitioner has two sons and two daughters. One of the daughters is unmarried. The petitioner needs the accommodation in question for her own use and for the use of her family members. It is admitted that the petitioner is running a hotel with the name and style of Hotel Padmini Niwas which consists of 24 rooms but the petitioner is in occupation of only one room which is insufficient for herself and her family members, particularly when the petitioner's children visit her at Mussoorie. Originally one Smt. Mohini Gidwani was the tenant of premises in question and on her death respondents No. 2 to 4 inherited the tenancy but it is alleged that all the three are living permanently in Delhi, and visit Mussoorie hardly for the 10 days in a year during summers. Learned Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence of the parties allowed the release application vide its order dated 31.3.2000 aggrieved by which respondents No. 2 to 4 (tenants) preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1 which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 107 of 2000. The said appeal, after hearing the parties, was allowed, and release application was rejected by the learned District Judge (respondent No. 1). Hence this petition by the landlord on the ground that the learned District Judge has erred in law in not considering the petitioner's need as bonafide genuine.

(3.) I heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit along with annexures annexed thereto.