RAMKALI Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord being aggrieved by the order dated 17.8.1985 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Jhansi rejecting the application under Section 21(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the release of the disputed premises has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioners filed the application for release of part of the accommodation of House Nos. 76, 77, Hafariyan, Jhansi, claiming that on the basis of family partition dated 15.12.1982, they have received the disputed property in their share. The petitioners have also received House No. 9 under the aforesaid settlement which was confirmed in Civil Suit No. 264 of 1983. The accommodation in House No. 9 which is in occupation of the landlord is insufficient to meet the requirement of the family members, consisting of self, son, daughter -in -law and two minor sons and as such they require the disputed premises which consists of two rooms, one kitchen, court -yard and latrine etc. The accommodation at the disposal of the petitioners is only four rooms without the facility of kitchen, latrine and bathroom.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority allowed the application for release by order dated 21.9.1986 holding that by virtue of the partition dated 15.12.1982 which was confirmed in the compromise petition in Suit No. 264 of 1983 by order dated 26.9.1983 house Nos. 76 and 77 1/3rd of House No. 9 came in the share of the petitioners. Earlier smt. Vidya Devi was the landlady and as she had not objected that the petitioners are not the owners and landlords of the disputed premises and as such by partition they have become the owners and landlords of the disputed premises. With regard to the bonafide need of the landlords it was held that the accommodation at House No. 9 in which they had 1/3rd share consists of only four small rooms and there is no facility of latrine and bathrooms. The need of the landlord was held to be genuine as the accommodation at his disposal was found to be insufficient and unsuitable considering the requirement and status of the family. The son was shortly to be married and in absence of any kitchen, latrine and bathroom, the need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine. As regards the comparative hardship, the tenant who owns and runs a two seater vehicle has sufficient income and he can arrange for some alternative accommodation. The landlord would be put to greater hardship.