HARI MOHAN KICHLU Vs. VIIITH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hari Mohan Kichlu, landlord-petitioner in both the writ petitions filed two release applications under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Control Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) hereinafter referred to as Act, against two tenants. One application was filed against Ramesh Chandra, respondent No. 2 in the first writ petition and the other application was filed against Hari Krishna Gupta, respondent No. 2 in the second writ petition. Release applications against Ramesh Chandra and Hari Krishna Gupta were registered as P.A. Case No. 18 of 1987 and P.A. Case No. 17 of 1987 respectively on the file of Prescribed Authority/III-Addl. Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar. The release applications were allowed on 8.8.1990. Against the said decisions Ramesh Chandra and Hari Krishna Gupta tenants filed two appeals under Section 22 of the Act being R.C. Appeal No. 46 of 1990 and R.C. Appeal No. 47 of 1990. Appeals were allowed through judgment dated 14.8.1991 by VIIIth Addl. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, against which these writ petitions are directed.

(2.) The accommodations in tenancy occupation of both the tenants are adjacent to each other and are parts of the same building/Kothi.

(3.) In the release applications it was stated that the accommodations in dispute along with other properties fell in the share of landlord petitioner under family partition which was recognised by a compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 209 of 1985 ; that landlord was serving as Joint Director (Farms) in Animal Husbandry Department of Government of U.P., that landlord would be retiring on 31.12.1987 and after retirement he intended to settle at Muzaffarnagar and reside in the accommodation in dispute. Through amendment it was added in the release applications that landlord had retired on 31.12.1987 and vacated on 14.3.1988 the Government house, which had been given to him by Government at Lucknow. It was also pleaded that Ramesh Chandra had constructed his own house and had shifted therein. It was also pleaded that the family of the landlord consisted of himself, his wife and three sons and one of the sons had got a job in Muzaffarnagar and was of marriageable age and the other sons would also reach to marriageable age after sometimes. Ramesh Chandra admitted that he had purchased an Ahata from the brother of the landlord and made construction thereupon after spending a lot of money. Ramesh Chandra further pleaded that in the said ahata landlord/applicant Hari Mohan Kichlu was also co-sharer, hence he requested him to execute the sale deed of his share. The partition was also denied and it was asserted by the tenant that the same was sham and fictitious and had been effected only for evicting the tenant.