MUKESH KUMAR VERMA & ORS. Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE (AYODHYA PRAKRAN)/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LUCKNOW & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr Ram Prakash Singh, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary facts and other details of multiple litigation between the par­ties, the facts of the case are that the dispute relates to House No. 498/21, Mohalla, Kutubpur, Daliganj, Faizabad Road, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow of which the opposite party No.2 is the landlord and the petitioners are tenants of ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.25/-. On 30.9.2003, the opposite party No.2 moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U. P. Urban Build­ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic­tion) Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity] for release of the ac­commodation on the ground floor compris­ing of three rooms, varandah, bathroom and a courtyard which was given on license in January, 1985 to Smt. Somvati, now de­ceased, real mother-in-law of the younger brother of opposite party No.2 in January, 1985 with a condition that she will vacate the same as soon as she will get a suitable ac­commodation. Further, it was pleaded that even after lapse of several years, Smt. Somvati had not tried to find out suitable ac­commodation despite several requests and reminders made by the opposite party No.2 and as such, a request to vacate the said ac­commodation on ground floor was made but no heed was paid by her, with the result, by the notice dated 25.6.1991, the license was terminated and she was called upon to handover the vacant and peaceful possession to the opposite party No.2, which was served upon her on 5.7.1991, but instead of vacat­ing the premises, she along with her sons, namely, the petitioners, misbehaved with the opposite party No.2, who was compelled to lodge an F.I.R. against them. In the said ap­plication, it was further pleaded that the op­posite party No.2 filed Regular Suit No. 353 of 1991 for possession and damages for use and occupation and Smt. Somvati along with the petitioners and her married daughters filed Regular Suit No. 39 of 1995 for permanent injunction and made an application for grant of ad interim order which was rejected and ultimately, the said suit was also dismissed on 29.5.2002. Owing to collusion with the staff of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, the petition­ers succeeded in getting the names of their father Prakash Chandra Verma entered in mu­nicipal records as tenant with effect from 1972. Regular Suit No. 353 of 1991 for pos­session and damages filed by the opposite party No.2 was decreed and the said order was affirmed in appeal, it has also been pleaded that the wife of the opposite party No.2 is High Blood Pressure patient and doc­tors advised her not to climb upstairs, hence ground floor of the house was in urgent need on health ground too. Next, they took a plea that the petitioners constructed their own house after purchasing a plot in auction from the Lucknow Development Authority, Luc­know through registered sale deed dated 4.1.1996 just in front of the licensed premises in dispute. The need of the opposite party No.2 is thus bona fide and genuine and the petitioners would not suffer any hardship, if the house in question is released in his favour; as they own their own house.

(3.) IN the written statement, it was further pleaded that in 1972, the opposite party No.2 proposed Smt. Sornvati, mother of petition­ers to shift her family from Etawah to Luc­know and to do some business, as at that time, the ground floor in question was lying vacant but late Prakash Chandra Verma, her husband declined to reside in the house in dispute without paying any rent, as it was against the sentiments and customs of a Hindu which was accepted, whereupon, the house was occupied by him and he started paying rent @ Rs.25/- per month. He had converted latrine into flush by investing huge amount. In the last week of March, 1991, the opposite party No.2 occupied first floor of the house in question as he was living in his ancestral house at Babuganj, Lucknow and had dug out the roof of the rented house and planted two "Neem" trees and the height of the grown up trees is 15' and its breadth was 2' at the time of plantation. The rent was subsequently re­fused, whereupon the same is being depos­ited in Misc. Case No. 57 of 1995. The oppo­site party No. 2 is a man of means and has a very big building at Babuganj, Lucknow. The accommodation constructed by the petition­ers is of commercial nature as the commer­cial plot was purchased from Lucknow De­velopment Authority and after construction having been raised, it was let out to the ten­ants, who are carrying on their business. The need as set up by the opposite party No.2 is neither bona fide nor genuine, hence the ap­plication is liable to be dismissed.