SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, HARIDWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means for this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (landlords) have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 24 -09 -1994 passed by learned District Judge, Haridwar, whereby Rent Control Appeal No. 13 of 1994 filed by the tenant has allowed setting aside the order dated 14 -02 -1991 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 02 of 1988, releasing the accommodation in question.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that Petitioner NO.1, Satish Kumar Agarwal is landlord of house No. 173, Eastern Amber Talaab, Roorkee. The said house consists of four sets of flats in occupation of different tenants. The northern fiat in the first floor was allotted to the respondent NO.2, Ajab Singh, who was in occupation of said flat (during the pendency of writ petition, respondent NO.2 died and his heirs inherited the tenancy and got substituted In this case). The petitioner No. 1 moved an application under Section 21(l)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for release of said flat as he needed the same for residence of his son and his family. Initially, said accommodation was in the tenancy of one Rakesh Kumar, who on his transfer did not handover possession to the petitioners. Taking benefit of the same, Tej Singh, tenant In one of the flats in the ground floor, took the possession of the flat in question and got it allotted in favour of his brother Ajab Singh (respondent No.2). It is alleged in the release application that the entire allotment proceeding took place behind the back of the petitioners. When the petitioners came to know of it, they moved a revision before the District Judge, however, the same was rejected on the ground of being barred by time. In the application for release of the flat, it has been stated that Shri Awdhesh Kumar, son of petitioner NO.1, is an unemployed youth and that petitioner No. 1 has to settle him in the flat In question. From the petition it also appears that the petitioner No. 1 was employed elsewhere at the time when the application was moved and needs house also for his settlement after retirement. It is further stated in the release application that by settling his son in the house in question, his son apart from looking after the agricultural work in his land In nearby village Sherpur, would also do business of building material etc. Claiming his need to be bonafide and greater hardship in his favour as against the tenant, said application was moved in the year 1988. The respondent NO.2 contested the said application alleging that the need of the landiord is not bonafide, rather, it has been moved malafide. It is further alleged in the objections, filed by the respondent NO.2 before the prescribed authority, that the landlord had a criminal litigation against Sri Tej Singh, brother of respondent NO.2, Ajab Singh, regarding criminal trespass, and since he lost said case, therefore, to pressurize Tej Singh, this release application was moved. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2 has got allotted the accommodation In question and living therein as he has to continue the education of his children, which is not available in his village Godhana, district Muzaffarnagar. Learned prescribed authority after taking the evidence in the form of affidavits, and hearing the parties, allowed the release application holding that the need of the landlord is bonafide and also held greater comparative hardship in his favour. Against said order of the prescribed authority, the tenant respondent No. 2 filed appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the District Judge, Haridwar. The said appeal, after hearing the parties, was allowed by the learned District Judge, Aggrieved by which, this writ petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is erroneous in law. It is alleged that learned appellate court has erred in law in not considering the bonafide need of the landlord. It is further alleged that the learned appellate court also erred in law in not considering the greater comparative hardship of the landlord.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2/1 and 2/2 in which it has been stated that landlord's release application was based on the incorrect facts and he alongwith his sons has settled at Kanpur. It IS further stated In the counter affidavit that the appellate court rightly found that the need of the landlord was not genuine. It is further stated that, even otherwise, since the findings of the appellate court are not perverse, as such, cannot be interfered in the writ jurisdiction.