ABDUL HAI Vs. IIIRD ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 14.3.2001 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Basti in Civil Appeal (Rent Appeal) No. 35 of 2000.

(2.) The respondent Nos. 2 and 3, landlords, filed an application against the petitioner, tenant under Section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). hereinafter called the Act. for release of shop, which was part of premises No. 168 Ka. Ward No. 6 situate in Basti town on the ground that it was in dilapidated condition and required fresh construction mainly on the ground that initially premises in question was joint property of their father and other co-sharers. After death of their father, suit No. 115 of 1989 was filed for partition, which was decided in terms of compromise dated 21.10.1992. According to compromise, the shop in question came in the share of landlords. It was also agreed that the petitioner/tenant would be paying rent to the mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner/tenant deposited rent under Section 30 of the Act. which was withdrawn by mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. After death of their father, the financial condition of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 became miserable and they had no source of Income. Southern part of the premises in which the shop in question was situate was in dilapidated condition and it caused danger to Its Inhabitants and it required reconstruction after demolition. The mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had submitted plan before the prescribed authority for construction of new house, but the petitioner/tenant was not vacating, hence the application.

(3.) The above application was contested by the tenant/petitioner on the ground that no doubt the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were owners of the premises in question, but they were not landlords. Smt. Pushpa Agarwal. the mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was the landlady, who was realising rent. The petitioner/ tenant had deposited rent under Section 30 of the Act. which was withdrawn by mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Since the application was not moved by the landlord, it was not maintainable. He further contended that the premises in question was not in dilapidated condition and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no sufficient means to bear the expenses of construction.