RAM SEWAK Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 initiated by him against tenants-respondents No. 3 and 4. The property in dispute is a house. Landlord pleaded in the release application that he was residing in a tenanted house and required a house in dispute for his residential need. It was further pleaded that tenants-respondents No. 3 and 4 had their own accommodation available for residence near the building in dispute. Prescribed authority also appointed a Commissioner who submitted his report after inspection. Release application which was registered as case No. 20 of 1978 was allowed on 7.7.1980 by Prescribed Authority/ Judicial Magistrate-II. Etawah. The prescribed authority found that the need of the landlord was bona fide and balance of hardship also lay in his favour. Tenants filed appeal against the judgment and order of the prescribed authority under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 57 of 1980. The appeal was allowed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etawah through judgment and order dated 14.10.1988. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court.

(2.) The landlord petitioner had pleaded that initially his father Narain Das was the owner of the disputed accommodation who executed the Will in favour of the petitioner on 18.9.1970 hence after the death of Narain Das petitioner became owner/landlord of the building in dispute. Petitioner impleaded his mother Smt. Genda Rani as proforma opposite party in the release application. She is respondent No. 5 in the instant writ petition. Accommodation in dispute consists of 3 adjacent shops. Gher, and Pharh within boundary wall admeasuring 93 feet x 30 feet. It was also pleaded that after the death of his father, his brothers compelled him to leave the ancestral house and he was residing in a tenanted accommodation with great difficulty along with his family.

(3.) The tenants pleaded that Smt. Genda Rani mother of the petitioner was the tenant and petitioner collected rent on behalf of her mother that the accommodation in dispute is commercial accommodation hence it cannot be released for residential purpose,