ROSHANLAL Vs. RAMADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners are tenants on the first floor of the house in dispute, each having one room and a kitchen and each paying a monthly rent of Rs. 18.00. The first and the second respondents, who are related to each other as sisters-in-law, are the owners of the house. The remaining accommodation in the house is in their possession. They made an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act for the release of the accommodation in possession of the petitioners. Their case was that they had partitioned the house between themselves and the accommodation in their possession had been divided as a result the accommodation in possession of the first respondent had become too short for her needs. Therefore, she needed the additional accommodation. This application was rejected by the prescribed authority on the ground that the partition of the house had not been proved and the accommodation in possession of the two ladies was quite sufficient for their needs. He also held that the petitioners were tenants since 1952 and 1954 and were persons of low income and if they were evicted they shall find it difficult to arrange for an alternative accommodation. The first respondent, namely, Shrimati Ramadevi filed an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority before the Additional District Judge, Kanpur. The learned Judge held that on the evidence on record the partition had been amply proved. He also held that the accommodation in possession of the appellant consisting of two living rooms, store room, an open Sahan, a kitchen and a Chhajja was inadequate and her need for additional accommodation was genuine. He accordingly set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and directed the peti tioners to vacate the accommodation in dispute within two months. The petitioners are aggrieved and have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the partition amongst the two respondents had not been proved inasmuch as there was no partition deed and the property also had not been separately mutated in their names. He also urged that the two ladies between themselves have sufficient accommodation. Now as to whether there was a partition or not is a question of fact and I am prepared to accept the finding of the learned Judge that there was a partition between the two ladies. I am also prepared to accept the finding that the needs of the first respondent for additional accommodation is genuine. Indeed, there was no necessity for the learned Judge to record such a finding because by virtue of clause (iv) of Explanation attached to Section 21 of the Act the law presumes that when a part of the building is in the occupation of the landlord for residential purposes it shall be conclusive proof of the fact that the remaining building is required by the landlord bona fide. But in my opinion the learned Judge has committed another manifest error of law as a result of which his order stands vitiated.

(3.) THE result is that the petitioner succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Additional District Judge dated November 2, 1973 (Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition) is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to costs.