LALLI DEVI Vs. VIIITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions Involve the same questions and. therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The premises in dispute is the first floor of house No. 45/18, Annapurna Gall, Bhaironath, Varanasi. On the first floor, there are two rooms and a varandah. In one room Smt. Lalli Devi. the petitioner in petition No. 19020 of 1999 is tenant. In another room. Shankar Prasad Singh, petitioner in Petition No. 36587 of 1999 is tenant. On the ground floor of the house, there are two rooms in the possession of the landlady respondent No. 2 and her husband respondent No. 3; that her husband respondent No. 3 is the pujari of a temple of house No. 32/50 situated in Annapurna Gali, Bhafronath, Varanasi ; that he is offering prayer in the temple and staying in one room of the said house. However, the owners of the house have now asked him to vacate the same : that, therefore, the respondent No. 2 landlady required the disputed portion for living with her family in the same. It is alleged that the family of the landlady consists of her husband, two sons and one daughter who are receiving education ; that apart from this, three nephews of the landlady are also living in the said house with her who are receiving education at Varanasi ; that landlady also owns a cow and some place is also required for the cow and its fodder. It is further pleaded that the house is about 100 years old and is in a dilapidated condition and the landlady want to get it reconstructed ; that, therefore, the need of both the rooms of the first floor of the landlady is bona fide.

(3.) The respondent Nos 2 and 3, therefore, moved a petition for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P Act No. XIII of 1972 against Smt. Lalli Devi petitioner in petition No. 19020 of 1999 being P.A. Case No. 16 of 1992. The said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 14.5.1997 by Judgment, Annexure-5 to the petition. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3. therefore, filed an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 being appeal No. 26 of 1997. The same has been allowed by judgment dated 25.1.1999, Annexure-11 to the petition.