JAGDISH CHAND Vs. KRISHNA MOHAN AGRAWAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These tenants' petitions involving common questions of facts and law are being disposed of together by this common judgment.

(2.) In writ petition No. 47 of 2005 (R/C), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.4.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 8 of 1999 releasing thereby the tenanted portion of building No. 826 in occupation of the petitioner as also the appellate order dated 30.3.2005 passed in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2002 whereby his appeal against the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority has been dismissed. The petitioner in other Writ Petition No. 55 of 2005 (R/C) has challenged the order dated 15.9.1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 7 of 1998 releasing thereby the portion of the said building under his occupation as also the order of appellate Authority dated 30.3.2005 passed in Rent Appeal No. 8 of 1999 dismissing thereby his appeal.

(3.) It appears that in both the aforesaid cases, the respondent No. 1 alongwith his sons, claiming to have succeeded the disputed building from his wife Smt. to Devi as her heir as also on the basis of a Will, made applications under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act for short, for its release on the ground of personal requirement. Their case was that their family is large one, consisting of more than thirty members and some of their family members need accommodations for starting business and for establishing chambers/offices. It was also alleged in the release applications that the business of the petitioners in the tenanted accommodations had come to a stand still because of the declaration of market area at a different place and the petitioners have also alternative accommodations for their residence. According to the respondent-applicants, their hardship was comparatively more than that of the petitioners, hence the disputed accommodations deserved to 38 released under the relevant provisions of the Act, as cited above.