AKHTARI BEGUM Vs. KHURSHEED AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants have filed this petition for quashing the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2011 by which the appeal filed by the landlord under section 22 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for setting aside the order dated 2nd December, 1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the application filed by the landlord under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, was allowed. It is stated that the landlord filed an application on 18th November, 1987 under section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the residential accommodation as it was bona fide required by the landlord. It was stated that the tenant was occupying one room and a Varanda on the first floor of the house on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-; that the family of the landlord consisted of five persons and the landlord had in his possession only one room on the first floor, a Varanda and Angan on the ground floor; that there was no kitchen and storeroom and a portion of the space below the staircase being was used as a kitchen and storeroom; that the marriage of applicant No. 1 had been settled and so he also required another room and that the tenant was not likely to suffer any hardship as he was an Engine Driver in the Northern Railways and could get an alternative accommodation.

(2.) The tenant filed a reply to the aforesaid application filed by the landlord. It was stated that the need of the landlord was not bona fide as there was sufficient accommodation available with him. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 2nd December, 1994 rejected the application filed by the landlord under section 21(1)(a) of the Act holding that the landlord could partition the rooms and that the tenant had no other accommodation available with him and that his family consists of 13 persons.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 6 of 1995. This appeal has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2011. The Appellate Court has observed that the landlord bona fide required the tenanted portion as the accommodation available with the landlord was not sufficient. It has also been observed that the tenant had in fact constructed a new house at Karelli and had shifted with his family to the said house but was keeping the tenanted house locked. It also observed that the tenant had two luxury cars and one Jeep which was being used as Taxi.