SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE E C ACT

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Petitioner claims himself to be the owner of house No. 105/551, Anand Bagh, Kanpur on the basis of its purchase in the year 1958. Respondent No. 3 is tenant of two rooms, one verandah and a Courtyard on the first floor in the said building. A application for release of the aforesaid portion in the tenancy of the Respondent (hereinafter referred as the accommodation in dispute) was filed by the Petitioner alleging that she was residing in small portion with her family as lessee of one room having dimensions of 12 ft x 1 ft, a box room 10 ft x 8 ft, a verandah including passage which is being used as kitchen and that thus accommodation was not sufficient for the requirement of her family.

(3.) The previous owner of the property had already sent a notice to the tenant for vacating accommodation in dispute on ground of bona fide need Another application for release was also moved for eviction of another tenant, namely, Sri Shiv Sahai and others in respect of another portion consisting of three rooms, two verandah and one Courtyard on the ground floor and one room and open roof on the first floor. The grounds of release in the other application were also the same as the grounds taken for release of portion under the tenancy of Respondent tenant in the present writ petition. It appears that Respondent filed a copy of award dated 2.2.1953 in the Court below in order to establish that the property in dispute infact vested in Smt. Baikunthi Devi and Pramod Saran Garg and not the Petitioner or her husband as such they do not have any title and to prove that status is merely of a licencee. Documents were also filed to show that relations between the Petitioner with Baikunthi Devi and Pramod Saran Garg were very strained and they were insisting upon the Petitioner to vacate the portion in their possession in the house in dispute. The Prescribed Authority considered both the release applications and rejected them by a common order dated 28.2.1994 basically on the ground that need of the landlord was not bona fide as she was in possession of sufficient accommodation independently from the tenant in premises No. 86/303 Rai Purwa and did not require the accommodation of the tenants.