RAGHUBAR DAYAL D Vs. IXTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, arising out of common order, challenging the order passed by the appellate authority dated 27th August, 1997 and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 12th April, 1994 under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of petitions are that the petitioner Shri Raghubar Dayal and Shri Anand Kumar and others were two tenants. Shri Raghubar Dayal is the tenant of respondent No. 3, landlord. The landlord filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. seeking release of the accommodation under the tenancy of Shri Raghubar Dayal for his bona fide personal requirement and another application was filed against another tenant Shri Anand Kumar. Both these cases were clubbed together by the Prescribed Authority and were heard and decided by a common order, after parties adduced their evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued the matter before the Prescribed Authority. The main plank of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that since so called partition is not genuine partition and is only illusory one and the purpose of filing of the present application is to evict the tenants from the accommodation. It has also been suggested that since according to the partition, the original accommodation under the tenancy of Shri Raghubar Dayal stands bifurcated and the partition of the original tenancy now falls in the share of Shri Raghubar Dayal. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent No. 3 without impleading either co-sharer or landlords is not maintainable under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Prescribed Authority considered the aforesaid arguments and arrived at the findings thai the tenants have failed to establish that actually no partition had taken place and that since the actual partition was found to be correct, it cannot be said on the basis of assumption of the evidence that need is not bona fide ; the finding was arrived at by the Prescribed Authority after assessing the evidence on record. The Prescribed Authority further found that comparative hardship also tilts in favour of the landlord. He. therefore, allowed both the applications of the landlord filed against the tenants.