P.R. NARANG Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the constitution is directed against the order dated 4.9.1990 passed by the District Judge in proceedings under Section 22 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THERE had been a long drawn litigation between the parties and a number of properties are involved in the present litigation. The dispute relates to premises No. 9, Nemi Road, Dehradun, of which Sri N.R. Anand, husband of respondent No. 2, was the owner. After the death of Shri N.R. Anand on 21.5.1984, respondents 2 to 6 namely, Smt. Raj Kaushalya, widow, Sri Lalit Anand, son, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Anand, son, Smt. Uttra Sawhney and Dr. Swadesh Seth, daughters respectively became the owners/landlords of a portion of the disputed property along with servant quarters, garage, land appurtenant and an orchard. In the release application under Section 2(1)(a) filed by respondents 2 to 6, it has been alleged that they were living with the brother of late Sri N.R. Anand at 64-A, Lytton Road, an accommodation owned by one Smt. Asha Gujral and under the tenancy of Sri G.R. Anand. After the death of Sri N.R. Anand, the relations of the respondents with Sri G.R. Anand became strained and it became necessary for the respondent No. 2 to live separately and to shift in her own house. It has also been stated that respondent No. 4 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Anand is a Dental Surgeon employed at I D.P.L., Virbhadra, Rishikesh who wants to start his private practice at Dehradun. It has further been stated that the tenant Sri P.R. Narang is an affluent person and has got his residential house No. 18, Patel Road, Dehradun, of which the first floor was released in his favour and the tenant can shift to the alternative accommodation.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority by order dated 10.6.1988 rejected the release application and held that the respondent No. 2 has no bonafide need to shift in the disputed accommodation as she is comfortably residing at 64-A, Lytton Road. As regards the comparative hardship, it was held that the tenant had no alternative accommodation. The accommodation at 18, Patel Road is partly occupied by a tenant and unless the entire accommodation is available, the same cannot be demolished and reconstructed.