RAJESHWARI Vs. PREMA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of proceedings for eviction/release initiated by landlady-respondent against her on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Control Act, U.P.R.C. Act, in short (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). The accommodation in dispute consists of one shop and two residential rooms (or one big room divided by a wall into two portions) at the back of the shop on the ground floor. In between the shop and the rooms in which tenant's family is residing there is another room in tenancy of another tenant Ashok Sharma on behalf of landlady-respondent. On the ground floor there is some more accommodation which is/was in tenancy occupation of other tenants on behalf of the landlady-respondent. On first and second floor landlady resides with her family members. Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit is the map of the ground floor accommodation of the building including accommodation in dispute. During arguments it was asserted by learned Counsel for the tenant and not denied by the learned Counsel for the landlady that on first and second floor in the building there are 12 rooms in possession of the landlady. The release application was registered as Rent Case No. 24 of 1990, on the file of Prescribed Authority/ACMM v. Kanpur Nagar. In the release application, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition it was stated that landlady and her family members had a car and two scooters (or motorcycles) hence the shop in tenancy occupation of tenant was required for being used as garage as landlady was not having any accommodation on the ground floor and parking of the vehicles on the road was not safe and that passers by damaged the vehicle. It was further stated that the husband of the landlady met with a serious accident in March, 1988 in which both of his legs got multiple fractures and he remained confined to bed for several months as a result of which it was quite difficult for him to ascend and descend the stairs hence one room was required for his residence on the ground floor for which the residential room (or two rooms) in tenancy occupation of the tenant was quite suitable. In the release application it was specifically pleaded that:

(2.) In the same paragraph it was also stated that petitioner and her family members were quite rich, assessed to income tax as well as wealth tax hence their status was quite high. It was also stated that landlady had renovated the first floor and second floor portions and had constructed a room on the third floor for satisfying her residential requirement. The Prescribed Authority found the need of the landlady for both the purposes bona fide. The Prescribed Authority in its judgment on Page 49 of the paper-book mentioned that the husband of the landlady had admitted in his affidavit the fact that in the Building No. 80/82 Latouche road he was having his office and the said premises was in his tenancy occupation while comparing the hardship the Prescribed Authority held that tenant could shift his shop anywhere else. Ultimately by order dated 21st September, 1995 release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. Against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority tenant-petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the U.P.R.C. Act, being Rent Appeal No. 179 of 1995, A.D.J., Court No. XI, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 21st August, 2003 dismissed the appeal hence this writ petition.

(3.) The Appellate Authority directed the landlady to pay two years' rent (Rs. 27.50 x 24) to the tenant as compensation. In Paras 12 and 13 of the writ petition it has been stated that the portion of on the ground floor which was in tenancy occupation of one Smt. Sukhdai was released in favour of the landlady in release proceedings initiated by her against Sukhdai and on 16th January, 2003 landlady obtained possession of the said portion. In the map (Annexure-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit), the said portion is shown by red lines and is bigger than the shop in possession of the tenant-petitioner. Both the portions are situate on the same road. Dimensions of the shop in dispute are 15 feet 9 inch x 8 feet 9 inch while dimensions of the portion vacated by Sukhdai are 15 feet 9 inch x 12 feet 3 inch. The copy of the judgment of the Appellate Court pertaining to the release application of landlady-respondent against Sukhdai was filed before Lower Appellate Court by tenant-petitioner.