SIDDIQA BEGUM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner-landlady of the premises in question. Her husband Sri Mushtaq Hussain was in service. The opposite party is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 35 per month. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the petitioner for release of the accommodation in question on the ground that the petitioner has nine sons, out of them four are married. In all she has ten grand-children. One of the petitioner's sons was recently married when the application was moved. There are two married daughters, who have also five issues with them. The petitioner pleaded that her five sons live with her. Thus, there are 14 persons living with the petitioner. Her four sons were still unmarried. Marriage of two out of them was not solemnised on account of paucity of residential accommodation. The petitioner further pleaded that there is a house at Mohala Gher Mian, in which there are three rooms, one Baithak, which is a very small house. The landlady lives therein with utmost inconvenience and difficulties. The petitioner's husband was in Government service and has retired and is living with her in the same house. It was pleaded that the opposite party had assured that after the retirement of the petitioner's husband, he will vacate the premises, but now he declined to vacate the accommodation. The opposite party is said to have made illegal construction in the house in question without the petitioner's permission. The petitioner pleaded that the opposite party is a well-to-do person and he may purchase a house for himself. The opposite party's son-in-law Nizamuddin owns several big houses at Bilaspur Darwaza where he may take a house on rent. The petitioner had pleaded genuine and pressing need for the house in question for her and her family members for personal use and occupation.

(2.) THE tenant-opposite party filed a written statement and pleaded that the petitioner-landlady has a big house, which is sufficient for her residential need. It was also pleaded that there is another house belonging to the petitioner at Mohalla Kunda Rampur, which is lying vacant. It was simultaneously stated that the house at Kunda Rampur is of the real uncle of the petitioner, namely Ambar Shah. The opposite party further pleaded that the house of Mohalla Kunda Rampur was given to Smt. Farooqi Begum by Ambar Shah, who in turn sold it to Sri Mushtaq Hussain, petitioner's husband. The opposite party pleaded that Sri Iqbal Ahmed Khan was serving elsewhere and was not living at Rampur. The other sons, Maqsood Ali, Majid Ali and Shahid Ali were living outside Rampur separately. Asif Ali, petitioner's son was doing business at Nainital. The petitioner's four sons were unmarried. Even if they get married then also the petitioner shall have sufficient accommodation for their residence.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence and pleadings of the parties arrived at a conclusion that the need of the landlady-petitioner for the accommodation in question is genuine and pressing. After recording the said finding, the Prescribed Authority proceeded to compare the hardship of the parties if the release application was allowed. The Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence recorded the finding to the effect that there are ten persons in the family of the tenant-opposite party and 14 persons in the family of the petitioner-landlord. After perusing the evidence and examining the Commissioner's report it was found by the Prescribed Authority that the petitioner's husband is running a clinic in two rooms of the house in question. The Prescribed Authority observed "had the petitioner's husband not started running his clinic in two rooms of the house in question, there would have been no paucity of living accommodation". The Prescribed Authority although recorded the finding that admittedly the petitioner's husband is running a clinic in two rooms but it was not proved by the petitioner-landlady that in what capacity her husband was running a clinic. Since no certificate of document to show that the petitioner's house is suitable for carrying on medical profession, it was observed that the need of the landlady cannot be said to be bonafide on account of the use of two rooms of the house in question as a clinic. The release application was rejected only on the ground that had the petitioner's husband not started running a clinic at the house in two rooms, there was sufficient living accommodation available to the petitioner.