SHUJAATULLAH KHAN Vs. LST ADDITIOANL DISTRICT JUDGE RAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The landlord filed an application for release under the Act with the allegation that he was appointed as a Personal Assistant to Pro-Vice Chancellor in the Aligarh Muslim University w.e.f. 1.10.1956 and therefore, he left his ancestral house situated in Mohalla Talab Keleywala, Near Masjid Milan, Thana Kunda in Rampur where his father and other brothers and sisters stayed back. However, the father of the petitioner Late Shri Salamatullah Khan also shifted to Aligarh to ensure better educational facilities for his sons and daughters and allowed Shri Mushtaq Hussain Khan, the deceased respondent (who has been now substituted by his heirs) as tenant at Rs. 30/- per month in the disputed premises on the ground floor consisting two bed rooms, one verandah , court yard, kitchen, sitting room, latrine and bathroom etc. with the promise that on the return of the petitioners he would vacate it. During his life time Slamatullah Khan used to go periodically for collecting his pension at Rampur and used to stay at the said accommodation. After his demise in 1979 the respondent tenant started paying rent to the petitioner no. 1. Upon his retirement on 30.9.1993 he continued to stay in the official accommodation provided by the University at enhanced rent but despite several requests the respondent tenant did not vacate the premises and therefore, the petitioners could not shift to their ancestral house in Rampur forcing him to file aforesaid application for release for his own and his family's occupation.

(3.) The respondent tenant filed his objections admitting tenancy at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month but contested the need of the landlord. He claimed that the wife of the landlord had succeeded to two house at Rampur itself which could satisfy their need. It was also stated that earlier a release application under Section 21(1)(a) had been filed in 1989 for release of the disputed accommodation setting up the need of petitioner nos. 3 and 4 but the same was dismissed on 16.3.1993 and the consequential appeal was also dismissed on 4.9.1995 holding that they had available two rooms on the first floor of the disputed house and the said finding having become final and as these facts were not disclosed in the release application, it showed that there was no genuine need but only to harass and evict the tenants, the motivated release has been filed.