MAKHDOOM BUX Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution in the absence of learned counsel for the tenant petitioner as well as landlady-respondent No. 2 on 20.1.2004. Thereafter restoration application was filed which was allowed on Rs. 25,000/- as cost on 8.8.2012. Both the tenant-petitioner as well as landlady-respondent No. 2 have died. Their substitution applications were also allowed on 8.8.2012 and arguments on the merit of the writ petition were also heard on the same date. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of proceedings for release of the accommodation in dispute which is residential in nature and rent of which is Rs. 16/- per month. The release application was filed on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act 1972 and was registered in the form of Rent Case No. 175 of 1976. Prescribed authority/Ist Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur rejected the release application on 5.8.1981 holding that landlady had sufficient residential accommodation in her possession.

(2.) Against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, landlady-respondent No. 2 filed Rent Appeal No. 270 of 1981 which was allowed by District Judge, Kanpur on 23.9.1982. Order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside and release application was allowed.

(3.) Release application was filed on 27.9.1978. However, only about four and half months before i.e. on 15.5.1978 landlady had sold adjoining residential portion consisting of three rooms. Regarding this sale deed the case of the tenant was that it was sham as through it property had been sold to her brother-in-law by the landlady and even in the sale deed itself it was mentioned that no sale consideration was paid and sale deed was being executed for some old debt. However, landlady pleaded that the sale deed was quite genuine and purchaser was not her bother-in-law. The lower appellate Court held that the sale deed was genuine and tenant could not prove that the purchaser was brother-in-law of the landlady the seller. The sold portion was western wing of the accommodation in which landlady was residing and part of which was the tenanted portion in dispute. The Prescribed Authority had held that the sold portion was in-fact in occupation of the landlady which was sufficient to satisfy her need.