MUNNA LAL SAHU Vs. SALIKRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) After hearing the parties, the Appellate Court has record a finding that application under section 21(1)(a) was filed by the landlord for his bona fide need and as such it is to be considered in the light as to whether need of the landlord is bona fide or not and whether he would suffer more hardships than the tenant or not. The Court further held that it cannot go into merits of the question in the application as to whether degree obtained by son of the landlord is Farzi or not. The Court further held that by inserting paragraph 3-A, nature of the application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13/1972 would not change and accordingly the Court has allowed the same directing the landlord to Incorporate the amendment in the memo of appeal fixing 5.5.2010 for hearing.

(3.) Perusal of the plaint filed by the landlord appended as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, shows that case of the landlord was that he has three adult sons- Anand Kumar, Durgesh Kumar and Vimlesh Kumar but they have not been settled; that landlord is earning livelihood for the family from a tea stall; that his children are eligible bachelors for marriage whose marriage could not be performed as they have not settled in any livelihood; that tenant is having his own house No. 1/7, Preetam Nagar, P.S. Dhoomanganj, Allahabad consisting of three rooms, Courtyard, Varandah, Kitchen, latrine and bathroom, in which he and his children are also running a "Parchoon shop", and therefore he cannot remain in possession of the shop in dispute under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which is required by the landlord for his bona fide need and he will suffer greater comparative hardships than the tenant-petitioner.