SUNDARI DEVI Vs. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the order dated 4.8.1990, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 74 of 1985. whereby appeal filed by the landlord has been allowed and the order dated 30.10.1985 passed by respondent No. 2 has been set aside.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the landlord was residing according to own admission of the petitioners-tenants, in a rented accommodation at Agra when he purchased this building in question in the year 1979. He thereafter filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for release of the building in question for personal requirement, as stated above in the year 1980, which was in occupation of the tenants. The first objection that has been taken by the petitioners-tenants is that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act having been filed within one year of purchase of the building in question was not maintainable as there is a statutory bar of three years for a transferee landlord, but this argument has not been pressed during the course of the hearing of the writ petition. In view of the law settled by this Court that the bar of three years would apply not on the date of the filing of the application, but on the date when the application is decided. Before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioners-tenants raised an objection that in fact from the perusal of Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, it is clear that the need set up by the landlord is not bond fide, inasmuch as it has been stated that the family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife and his mother and father only. The landlord further stated that his family was residing in a rented house bearing municipal No. 27/8 North Vijay Nagar Colony, Agra. It is admitted fact that during the pendency of the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, the father of the landlord died. The tenants have put up defence that the landlord has purchased the building in question only for the purposes of re-sale after getting evicted the petitioners-tenants and he had absolutely no intention to set up any alleged industry at Agra, whereas the landlord has stated in the application that he is taking training of running and managing an industry at Delhi and as soon as he completes his training or the building in question is released, he will be shifting to Agra for establishment of the industry. It would not be out of place to mention that the application was filed in the year 1980 and we are now in the year 2002, till date the building in question has not been adjudicated upon. In this context, the stand taken by the tenants that the landlord in fact is permanently settled at Delhi and he had absolutely no intention to settle down at Agra or establishing any Industry as alleged by him because had it been the real intention of the landlord to set up an industry at Agra, he would have done some ground work or would have established industry, but since then nothing has been done. The stand taken before the Prescribed Authority by the petitioners-tenants is further substantiated that during these 22 years and odd, nothing has been done by the landlord. Coming back to the facts of the case, the Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence and pleadings of the parties arrived at the conclusion that the parents of the landlord are living in a separate accommodation at Agra and landlord is not residing with his family at Agra, therefore, he has no bona fide requirement of the building in question for residence and tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the tenants.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the landlord filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the appellate authority. Before the appellate authority, arguments were advanced and the appellate authority after considering the arguments advanced by the parties reversed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority on the question of bona fide need and also on the question of comparative hardship and allowed the appeal after setting aside the order passed by the prescribed authority, hence this writ petition by the petitioners-tenants.