RAM CHANDRA SINHA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlords' petition directed against rejection of their applications for release filed under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub -section (1) of Section 21 of the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972). The Petitioners have lost before both the authorities below.

(2.) RAM Chandra Sinha, Petitioner No. 1 and Badri Narain Srivastava, Petitioner No. 2 filed the application for release on the basis that they had become joint owners of the property in dispute by virtue of the sale deed executed in there favour on 18th May, 1972. It was pleaded that Petitioner No. 2 was serving in the Army and he had occasionally to be posted at non -family stations and, therefore, his children were to stay with Ram Chandra Sinha, Petitioner No. 1 who is his brother -in -law. It was pointed out that the family of Petitioner No. 2 comprised of himself, his three minor children aged about between 9 to 13 years, dependent younger brothers studying in B.A. II year, dependent father, dependent mother another dependent younger brother and three younger sisters. In this manner the family of Petitioner No. 2 was stated to be comprising of eleven members out of which three were minors at the time of moving the application. In respect of Petitioner No. 1 it was stated that his family comprised of himself, his wife, his widowed mother, a son Ved Prakash studying in Class IV, his dependent brother, brother's wife and one son. In this manner it was indicated that the family of the Petitioner No. 1 comprised of five adults and two children. For this large family of the two Petitioners, the Petitioners disclosed that the accommodation available to them comprised of only one living room. On the facts herein before stated the Petitioner's case was that the tenements occupied by the various opposite parties were bonafide required for their personal use. It was also stated in the application that the tenements occupied by the opposite parties were in dilapidated condition and required demolition. Thus the release was sought under Clause (a) as well as under Clause (b) of Sub -section (1) of Section 21.

(3.) IN support of their plea that the tenements were in dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction, the landlords apart from filing their affidavits, filed the report of an Assistant EngineeR.They also placed on record a plan of the building proposed to be constructed after demolition of the existing structure. An assessment of the cost that would be incurred in demolition and reconstruction also appears to have been filed. From the side of the tenants, opposite parties, no report of an expert was filed. They filed their own affidavits denying that the tenements were in dilapidated condition.