SUDARSHAN DEVI Vs. BHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4th November, 2004, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, whereby the appeal against the order dated 8th January, 1999, passed by the prescribed authority, filed on behalf of the respondents-landlord has been allowed by the appellate authority,

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that Sardar Indra Singh was the owner of the accommodation in question. After the death of Sardar Indra Singh, the interest of the ownership was devolved over his wife Smt. Bhajan Kaur and his five daughters, who have been arrayed as Respondents 2 to 6 in the present petition. Manohar Lal was the original tenant and after his death, the tenancy of the accommodation has been inherited by her wife Smt. Sudarshan Devi and two sons, who have been arrayed a petitioners in the resent petition. It is not in dispute that before the filing of the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, (In short 'the Act') by the landlord, Sardar Indra Singh has died and his interest has been inherited by respondents 1 to 6. The respondents 1 to 6 filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the accommodation in question under the tenancy of the petitioners-tenant on the ground that they bona fide required the aforesaid accommodation. This application has been contested by the petitioners-tenant before the prescribed authority and after the exchange of the pleadings and evidence on record, the prescribe authority vide its order dated 8th January, 1999 rejected the release application filed by the respondents-landlord. Before the prescribed authority the point that found favour was that respondents 2 to 6 are married daughters of landlord-respondent No. 1, therefore, they are not covered by the definition of 'family' within the meaning of the word used under the provisions of 'the Act', therefore, any application by respondent No. 1 (widow of landlord) for the release of the accommodation in question in order to accommodate respondents 2 to 6 would not be maintainable. Therefore, the prescribed authority rejected the release application moved on behalf of the landlord-respondents,

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the landlord-respondents preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was decided by the appellate authority by the order impugned in the present writ petition, whereby the appellate authority accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the prescribed authority and allowed the release application filed by the landlord and released the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners-tenant by means of present writ petition,