DAYA SHANKER Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord and owner of the premises No. 67 of 310, Kanchhiyana Mohal, Kanpur and is residing on the first floor with his family. The accommodation in occupation of the petitioner consists of two rooms, which are interconnected, a covered Verandah, latrine and bathroom. The family of the petitioner consists of self, wife, 4 sons, daughter-in-law, and an unmarried daughter. On the second floor, there is one room which, was in the occupancy of a tenant Sri Bhal Chand. He fell in arrears of rent and, accordingly, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of rent and for ejectment against the said tenant and for possession. This suit was decreed on 21.1.1978 and the petitioner was delivered possession pursuant to the execution of the decree. The petitioner as, a law abiding citizen, intimated the vacancy to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 1.2.1978 and also filed an application for the release of the room vacated by the tenant under Section 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) The petitioner in his application submitted that his need for the room was genuine and bona fide and that the room was required for the members of his family. It was stated that one of his sons had got married and that he required a separate room for himself and for his wife. The daughter had also grown up and she too required some privacy.

(3.) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 28.9.1978 rejected the release application of the petitioner on the ground that his need was not bond fide as he had let out the premises three year ago. The revisional court allowed the petitioner's revision and the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the need of the petitioner.