ALLAHDIN Vs. GRISH CHANDRA AGRWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the petition by the tenant, challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, Kasganj, Etah dated 28.2.2005 by which the appeal filed by the landlord-respondents has been allowed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 3.3.2003 by which he has rejected the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the landlord-respondents filed release application for the eviction of the petitioner from the house in dispute on the ground that the same is needed for the residence of his son Sri Nikhil Agarwal. In the application, it was stated that Sri Nikhil Agarwal is now married and he is living along with his wife and children in House No. 1504 of State Bank Colony belonging to Smt. Asha Agarwal on a rent of Rs.1000/- per month, while the tenant has his own residential house towards east of Kasganj Railway Station, which is about 500 meters away from the disputed house in which the family of the defendant no. 1 is residing inasmuch as defendant no. 2 is not residing at Kasganj. It was also stated that defendant normally put the house closed and is not regularly using and unnecessarily occupying it with the intention to get the premium. The release application has been contested by the defendant-petitioner by filing the written statement. An amendment application has also been moved for the amendment in the written statement. By way of amendment, it is contended that during the pendency of the case, the owner of the house got one property situated at Mohalla-Mohan Railway Road, Kasganj vacated by way of settlement dated 16.9.2001, which was in possession of Kailash Chandra Jain and Anil Kumar Jain, on which Virendra Kumar and Girish Chandra have constructed two storeyed house, hence there is no need of the disputed house for the son Sri Nikhil Agarwal inasmuch as residential house is available to him.

(3.) The Prescribed Authority has rejected the application on the ground that during the course of the case, the landlords have constructed a Marriage Hall in the name of their daughter-in-law on a house which was got vacated from Kailash Nath Jain and Anil Kumar Jain, situated at Mohalla-Mohan Railway Road, Kasganj through compromise dated 16.8.2001 and other properties adjoining to said property. If the residential house was needed, in stead of constructing the Marriage Hall in the name of their daughter-in-law, the residential house would have been built which shows that the house for residential purposes was not urgently required. It has also been observed that Sri Nikhil Kumar is residing at the residence of his aunt. On a comparative hardship, the Prescribed Authority has observed that the landlords could not produce any evidence to demonstrate that the disputed house ordinarily remains closed and the defendant had a house at Gram Ahrauli and not at Kasganj. Another house near Mosque is not available to the defendant for residence. In the said house, Smt. Anwar resides as a tenant and the landlords are not able to file any evidence to show that the house situated at Nagla Sayed Pargana Bilram is vacant and is available to the defendant for residence.