KRISHNA DEVI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.2.2002, passed by the appellate authority in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2000 under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that admittedly petitioner is the tenant and the contesting respondent is landlord of the accommodation in question. The landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act'), for the release of the accommodation in question before the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner tenant is bona fide required by the landlord as the landlord is in the requirement of an additional accommodation because of the growing family. The release application further reveals that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord, Inasmuch as the tenant's elder son, namely. Narendra Kumar has already occupied another accommodation in the same municipality where he is living along with his family members and in case, the accommodation is released, the tenant can also easily shift there. The contesting respondent-landlord with regard to the Explanation of Section 21 of the Act has argued that tenant has stopped from raising the defence because of the application of the aforesaid Explanation in the circumstances stated in the application that the son of the tenant has acquired a vacant building in the same municipality and Explanation of Section 21 of the Act would apply and the application of the landlord deserves to be allowed and the accommodation in occupation of the tenant deserves to be released.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant raised an objection that the application is mala fide and originally the tenancy is coming down from her father since past 50 years and after purchase of the building by the present landlord in the year 1970, no notice is required in the case of transferee landlord to have been given as required under the Act. The so-called need set up by the landlord is neither bona fide, nor genuine and in fact mala fide. The accommodation of Narendra Kumar, which has been referred to as an alternative accommodation, is also not available to the tenant because since Narendra Kumar is married out of caste, therefore, he is living separately since long and because of the strained relations with daughter-in-law with the petitioner-tenant, the accommodation occupied by Narendra Kumar cannot be treated to be an alternative accommodation as suggested by the landlord. Thus, the tilts of the comparison of hardship are also in favour of the tenant.