CHANDRAPAL SINGH PARIHAR Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTT. JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD 's application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 13 of 1972) in respect of premises No. 124/323-B, Govind Nagar, Kanpur was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 26-3-1986 passed in case No. 123 of 1982. Petitioner failed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar vide judgment and order dated 23-3-1992.

(2.) THE landlord respondent No. 3 moved the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the premises in dispute in his favour, inter alia, on the ground that he having retired from service of the State of Madhya Pradesh wanted the tenanted premises for being occupied by himself and by members of his family with a view to settle permanently at Kanpur for the rest of his life along with his family members and for that purpose he required the accommodation in question. According to the landlord\respondent his family consisted of himself, his brother's wife Smt. Lakshmi Devi Shukla, his son Shi R.N. Shukla, daughter-in-law Smt. Kusum Shukla and three grand children Km. Seema Shukla, Shubhang Shukla and Hemang Shukla. It was alleged that landlord's Bhabhi Smt. Lakshami Devi being deserted by her husband had been residing with the landlord for the last fifteen years. It was further alleged by the landlord that his daughter Smt. Daya wife of Govind Prasad Misra and her three children frequently used to come and reside with him and that the part of the building already in his occupation is not sufficient to meet his and his family's genuine requirement. The respondent/landlord accordingly claimed release of the premises in question on the ground that it was bonafide required for occupation by himselt and the members of his family.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority allowed the release application vide order dated 26-3-86 holding that the provisions of Section 21(1A) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were attracted to the facts of the case in as much as the landlord having retired form service as Sahayak Sachiv, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal had to vacate the tenanted premises in his occupation at Bhopal. It was for this reason that the Prescribed Authority held that the need of the landlord was a bonafide one. As regards the question of comparative hardship the Prescribed Authority recorded no categorical finding on it but it held that since the respondents/landlord had already vacated the tenanted premises in his occupation at Bhopal after his retirement, his need for the premises in question was imminently urgent and bona fine.