KARAMAT ULLAH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 1.10.1981 passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 19.7.82 passed by the District Judge (Annexures-4 and 7) to the writ petition respectively.

(2.) The dispute relates to residential quarter No. 2 situate in Ahata No. 101/54-A. Ahata Gammon Khan Colonelganj, Kanpur. Landlady-respondent No. 3 whose legal representatives are R.No. 3/1 to R-3/6 moved an application before the prescribed authority for the release of the aforesaid quarter with the allegations that the quarters situate in the aforesaid ahata are built of khaprail and kachcha walls with third class material and the constructions being very old have given their life ; that in view of the government policy to remove slums in the city and to provide a better and well built accommodation the quarters in the ahata are to be demolished and reconstructed as per the sanctioned plan : that with the passage of time the aforesaid quarters have become dilapidated as the tile shades have broken. Tattar and bamboos have lost their life, the walls have developed cracks and some of the quarters have fallen down. The quarter in question, therefore, has to be demolished and the land has to be utilised for the construction of latrine and bathroom, fuel storage and a part of courtyard for which a plan has already been got sanctioned by the landlady and she has financial capacity for the proposed demolition and new construction. In short the case of the landlady was that all the quarters situate in the ahata are in a dilapidated condition and require demolition and reconstruction and the landlady has already constructed three rooms in the adjoining piece of land after getting the plan sanctioned from the Development Authority and for the beneficial enjoyment of the aforesaid rooms, courtyard, latrine, bathroom and kothari for storage of fuel are to be reconstructed on the land underneath the disputed quarter and therefore the need of the landlady for demolition and reconstruction of the quarter in question is hard, genuine, pressing and bona fide.

(3.) The application for release was contested by the tenant-petitioner, inter alia on a number of grounds, the main ground being that besides the applicant-landlady. Smt. Bilquish Jahan Begum is also a co-landlady of the house in question and the application for release was not maintainable on account of her non-Joinder. The tenant also denied that the quarter in question is in a dilapidated condition and the same requires demolition and reconstruction. On the other hand his case was that landlady damaged the wall of the tenanted portion of the house in question while constructing the adjoining rooms. It was further stated that the landlady has in her possession open courtyard where she could easily construct the latrine, bathroom etc. if at all she required them. The landlady is residing in premise No. 40/70 Makhania Bazar, Kanpur far removed from the tenanted accommodation and she had no need for any additional accommodation. Smt. Mushtaw Sher Ali and Avwat have vacated their tenanted accommodation over which three rooms have been constructed and those rooms have been recently let out to Mohd. Hafiz and Rahmat Ullah which showed that there was no personal requirement of the landlady.