SHEELA RANI MALHOTRA Vs. NIRMAL RADMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord-respondents under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of benefit (bona fide ?) need. The release application being P.A. Case No. 124 of 2000 was allowed by J.S.C.C./Prescribed Authority, Meerut through judgment and order dated 29.4.2002. Appeal filed against the same by tenant-petitioner being Misc. Appeal No. 133 of 2002 was dismissed by A.D.J., Court No. 11, Meerut through judgment and order dated 9.12.2002.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgments and orders.

(3.) IN the release application filed by the respondent No. 1 impleading respondent No. 2 as proforma opposite party No. 2 giving rise to the instant writ petition, the need set up was for the elder son of the respondent No. 1 who is an Advocate (Vipin Sodi). Husband of respondent No. 1 is also an Advocate. Husband of respondent No. 1 has got his chamber in the residential house numbered as C-105, Cariappa Street, Meerut Cantt. With regard to the said residential house, it was stated by the tenant-petitioner at a late stage that it contained fifteen rooms. Landlady countered the said allegation and stated there were only six rooms in the house. One of the main arguments of learned Counsel for tenant-petitioner is that the Court below wrongly rejected the application of tenant for inspection of the residential house of the landlady. The tenant also pleaded that even if the need of the landlady was bona fide she had other accommodation available to her where the chamber of her Advocate son could be established. It was also pleaded by the landlady that her husband was a leading lawyer having three juniors and the portion in the residential house in which his office was situate was not sufficient to accommodate him, juniors, clerk and his clients alongwith the chamber of his Advocate son.