NANDU LAL Vs. PUSPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 25.4.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 2 Varanasi in Rent Appeal No. 19 of 2009 Nandu Lal and others v. Smt. Puspa Devi appended as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition as well as the order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Hawaii, Varanasi in P.A. Case No. 58 of 2004 Smt. Duija Devi v. Chhote Lal and others, appended as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents not to evict the petitioners from House No. 20/25, Pishach Mochan, Nai Pokhari Ward Chetganj District Varanasi.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioners claim to be tenant of the House No. 20/25, Pishach Mochan, Nai Pokhari Ward Chetganj District Varanasi since before 1976. The landlady Duija Devi filed a release application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the father of the present petitioners namely Chhote Lal was tenant of two rooms at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. in the aforesaid house. In the year 1976, the family of the landlady was small as she has no issue as such she had adopted one Sanjai who is indulged with anti social activities and now she has become a drug addict; that is being looked after by one Sagar Pandey and his wife Smt. Puspa Devi who is looking after her as adopted son having four sons and four daughters. The landlady Smt. Duija Devi was 'Buwa' or sister of the father of Sagar Pandey.

(3.) The house in dispute consists of 7 rooms in which there are five rooms in ground floor, a dining hall, two latrine bathrooms. In two of these seven rooms, the petitioners and their family resides. Whereas the landlord alongwith Sagar Pandey and his family are having 4 rooms and a dining room alongwith two latrine and bathrooms. A room has also given by the landlord to the guard. It was stated in the release application that the family of the landlord is living like animal as there is paucity of space. One of the room has been given by her to the married grand son Gyanu Pandey and in remaining three rooms, unmarried grand daughters, grand sons of the landlady and her adopted son Sagar Pandey alongwith his wife are residing. When she had requested to the tenant to vacate the house, and to assure her that they will be vacating the house within some time, but they did not do so. Though the petitioners have sufficient source of income for taking another accommodation on rent and as such if the tenant shifts to another tenanted house, he will suffer comparative hardship than the landlady and her family.