POORAN CHAND Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amitabh Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The petitioner-landlord initiated proceedings for release of accommodation in question i.e., House No. 77, Nuniya Mohalla, Naya Bazar, Sadar, Meerut Cantt, wherein respondent is a tenant having possession of two rooms and a gallery. The petitioner Pooran Chand, in his release application filed under section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"), registered as P.A. Case No. 23 of 2004 before Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Cause Court, Meerut, pleaded that his family consisted of his wife Smt. Uma Devi, four sons namely, Rajesh (40 years), Anil (38 years), Sunil (36 years), Dr. Sanjeev (33 years) and wives of three elder sons and their eight children.

(2.) The petitioner owned house No. 75, in which there are two rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor, which are in possession of petitioner and members of his family. There is a asbestos sheet on the second floor. There is another house No. 91, Naya Bazar, Sadar, Meerut Cantt, which is owned by Smt. Uma Devi and Rajesh Kumar. It is interesting to note that in para 8 of release application, petitioner has pleaded ownership about House No. 91 in a typical manner, inasmuch as, it is said that the said house is owned by Sri Rajesh Kumar and his mother Uma Devi. It goes without saying that Smt. Uma Devi is wife of petitioner and therefore, basically the aforesaid house is owned by petitioner's wife Uma Devi and his elder son Rajesh Kumar. It is said that Rajesh Kumar alongwith his family is residing in the aforesaid house, wherein there is a room at the ground floor, in which Rajesh Kumar is carrying on his business and on the first floor, there are two rooms in which he is residing. There is another shop on the ground floor, which has recently been vacated and that would be used by Smt. Uma Devi for her younger son Dr. Sanjeev for running his medical practice. The accommodation in question was sought to be vacated on the ground that Dr. Sanjeev, who has now completed medical qualification, needs separate accommodation and in the absence of adequate accommodation, disputed accommodation be directed to be released.

(3.) The application was contested by defendant-respondent-tenant and besides others, he said that there are three houses i.e., House No. 77, 75 and 91. The landlord has not given correct available accommodation in the aforesaid houses and there is no genuine need as pleaded.