DEEPAK KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UPANDRA NATH BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition arguments of learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner were heard on 13.4.2005 and judgment was reserved. No one appeared on behalf of landlord respondent. The illness slip of learned Counsel for the landlord respondent filed on 13.4.2005 was ignored as the case was listed peremptorily. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No. 1 under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of bona fide need in the form of Rent Case No. 107/1979 on the file of Prescribed Authority/II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur.

(2.) ACCORDING to the brief allegation in the release application landlord was residing on second floor accommodation (consisting of three rooms) and tenant on the first floor accommodation consisting of five rooms, rent of which was Rs. 140/ - per month. Copy of the release application is Annexure -2 to the writ petition. The main ground of eviction taken in the release application was that on 27.9.1978 landlord suffered heart attack and was advised by the Doctor to avoid climbing the stairs and on account of the said ailment and advice landlord needed the accommodation on the lower floor. It was also stated in paras. 11 and 12 of the release application that landlord enjoyed good status, hence he required more accommodation. However, it was not stated that how many rooms were required by the landlord. It was stated in para. 2 of the release application that landlord's family consisted of himself, his wife and son, daughter -in -law and daughter. It was nowhere stated in the release application that landlord required six or eight rooms.

(3.) AGAINST judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority landlord respondent filed appeal under section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 being Rent Appeal No. 183 of 1983. XIII Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 22.9.1990 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application, hence this writ petition by tenant. The Appellate Court mainly allowed the release application on the ground of need of additional accommodation of the landlord and paucity of accommodation already available to the landlord. Even the Appellate Court did not accept landlord's contention that due to heart disease he deserved residence on the first floor instead of second floor. In fact release application was mainly based upon the ground that due to heart disease first floor accommodation was more suitable to the landlord than second floor accommodation. Need of additional accommodation was only half heartedly asserted in the release application without giving detail and particulars of requirement.