HAMIDAN Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Mohammad Yaqub was the owner of house No. 66, Akbarpur (Pura Manohar Das), Allahabad. He died leaving the Petitioner as his widow and four sons who have been arrayed as Respondents 4 to 7 in the present writ petition. The house in question was in occupation of Abdul Rashid, Respondent No. 3 as a tenant on behalf of Mohammad Yaqub. An application was made by the Petitioner against the Respondent No. 3 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) for the release of the said house in her favour on the ground that she needed it bonafide for her own use. A copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. In paragraph 3 of this application it has been stated that the Petitioner's family consisted of herself and her four sons, namely, Respondents 4 to 7. It has also been stated that one of the sons is married and has his wife and two children, whereas another son, who too is married has his wife and one child. The need, as was pleaded by the Petitioner, was in respect of the members of her family referred to above.

(2.) THE application was contested by the Respondent No. 3 inter alia on the ground that the Petitioner was not the landlord and her need was not bonafide. It was also asserted on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 that in the event of the application for release being allowed greater hardship would be caused to him than the hardship likely to be caused to the Petitioner on the said application being dismissed. After taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties, the Prescribed Authority held that the Petitioner was not the exclusive landlord of the accommodation in question but she was a co -landlord along with her four sons, namely, Respondents 4 to 7, all of them having inherited the house in question from Mohammad Yaqub. It accordingly held that the application for release was not maintainable in view of Rule 15(2) of the Rules framed under the Act, the same not having been signed by Respondents 4 to 7 along with the Petitioner. On the question of bonafide need also, the Prescribed Authority accepted the plea raised by Respondent No. 3 and held that the need of the Petitioner was not bonafide.

(3.) IT has been urged by the Counsel for the Petitioner that it had been established on the evidence on record that after the death of Mohammad Yaqub rent was paid by Respondent No. 3 to the Petitioner and as such she was the landlord of the house in question within the definition of that term contained in Section 3(j) of the Act. It has been urged that even though in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner this fact has been specifically asserted, the Prescribed Authority repelled the claim of the Petitioner in this behalf by making an observation that there was no evidence on the record to establish the aforesaid plea. For the Respondent No. 3 on the other hand it has been urged that the Petitioner has been taking inconsistent pleas. It was pointed out that even though in one of her affidavits she has stated that rent was realised by her from Respondent No. 3 after the death of Mohammad Yaqub, in another affidavit she stated that she was realising rent on behalf of her sons. According to the Counsel for Respondent No. 3 on the face of such inconsistent pleas taken by the Petitioner her application was rightly held to be not maintainable.