SUSHILA AND ORS. Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three writ petitions are interconnected, thus, all the three petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that Smt. Naumi Devi, mother of the present petitioners, had moved three applications under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking eviction of the tenants from three different tenanted portions in their respective possession on the ground of bona fide need saying landlord has three storey building at Bucharkhana, Landhor, Mussorrie commonly known as Naumi Niwas consisting of two flats on each floor and each flat consisting of two bedrooms and one verandah; three flats are in possession of landlord while three flats are in possession of three different tenants respondents, herein; family of the landlord is consisting of original plaintiff Naumi Devi, her husband Mangal Singh, three sons namely Pooran Singh, Ramesh Singh and Rakesh Singh and three daughters namely Laxmi, Sushila and Neelu total eight in numbers; plaintiff landlord requires tenanted portions so that she may reconstruct the building after demolishing the existing one, as per plan placed before the trial court to accommodate all the family members therein. It was further alleged that building, in question, is in dilapidated condition and Municipal Board, Mussoorie has issued notice under Section 278 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, to the landlord saying building is in dilapidated and dangerous condition, therefore, is unfit for human habilitation, therefore, same should be demolished forthwith; applications so moved by the landlord were registered as PA Cases No. 2/94, 3/94 and 4/94; all the tenants have filed their respective written statements stating therein that alleged notices issued by the Municipality for demolition of the building is collusive notice and building is not in dilapidated and dangerous condition and is fit for human habilitation; landlord is in possession of about 9 rooms, therefore, tenanted portions are not required by the landlord for the alleged bona fide need. It is further alleged that landlord neither has any bonafide need nor building is in dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction.

(3.) During the pendency of PA cases before the Prescribed Authority / Trial Court, Naumi Devi original landlord has expired and her legal heirs were substituted; an affidavit was also filed before the Prescribed Authority / Trial Court saying that all the three sons and three daughters of the original landlord are major while two sons namely Pooran Singh and Ramesh Singh are married; eldest son Pooran Singh has one son namely Master Varun while Ramesh Singh has one son namely Master Rohan and one daughter Vanshika while third son Rakesh is likely to be married in the near future; it was further stated that Sushila - one of the daughters of original landlord, is physically handicapped therefore, she requires ground floor accommodation to stay therein; this way it was demonstrated that family of the original landlord was consisting of 13 members including two daughters-in-law, therefore, available space with the landlords is not sufficient to accommodate all the 13 members therein.