JHANJHAN SINGH Vs. HAJI MOHD ANWAR FARSHORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) An application under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was filed by the landlords respondents Haji Mohd. Anwar Farshori, Mohd. Abbar Fashori and Mohd. Jalil Farshori, sons of late Mohd. Safdar Farshori r/o Farshori Tola, Budaun before the Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun for release of the accommodation in dispute under the tenancy of the petitioner tenant. The application was registered as P.A. Case No. 4 of 2002, Haji Mohd. Anwar Farshori and others v. Jhanjhan Singh.

(3.) The case set up by the landlords in the P.A. case was that Mohd. Safdar was landlord of house no. 441 situate in Civil Lines, Badaun, the house in dispute, detailed in the map appended with the release application. As this residential accommodation was not required by him a part of it was allotted by the District Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the tenant JhanJhan Singh on 7.2.1977 by order number B/77; that at that time only the applicant Haji Mohd. Anwar was married and other applicants were married thereafter. Sri Mohd.Safdar died on 14.5.1979 leaving behind 37 members in his family who are detailed in the family tree given in paragraph no. 6 of the release application. It was averred that the house in dispute was about 90 years old and in dilapidated condition; that notice for its demolition was received from Nagar Palika Parishad, Badaun and for this reason also the house in dispute required demolition and reconstruction. The house in dispute on part allotment was numbered as House nos. 441-A and 441-B. The Land Development Bank Branch at Badaun was allotted portion no. 44-A regarding which assurance has been given by the tenant Bank for vacating it as such except the house in dispute no. 441-B under the tenancy of the petitioners the remaining portions have come in a state of being vacated and in these circumstances the accommodation in dispute is bonafide required by the landlords for demolition and reconstruction of building for their personal use.