VINOD KUMAR Vs. NATHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant challenges the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

(2.) The facts leading of the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'the Act', before the prescribed authority for the release of the accommodation in question in possession of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that at the time when the accommodation was let out to the petitioner, the children of the landlord were minor and the landlord was in possession of one room accommodation on the first floor, whereas the tenant was in possession of ground floor room. It has been further asserted in the release application that the landlord has three sons aged about 28 years, 25 years and 20 years, respectively and two daughters aged about 22 years and 14 years, respectively, apart from the landlord and his wife. That the large family of the landlord feels difficulties in residing in one room on the first floor portion and because of the paucity of the accommodation, the grown up sons could not be married and their marriage are being postponed. It is further asserted by the landlord that the petitioner-tenant has purchased a double story building in the same municipality of Kasganj in Mohalla Jai Jai Ram by registered sale deed dated 23rd June, 1998 in the name of his son, namely, Vivek Kumar Bansal and is also the possession of the aforesaid accommodation was delivered to be son of the tenant. It was therefore, prayed that in case the accommodation in question is release in favour of the landlord, the tenant can comfortably shift in the accommodation acquired by the tenant as the tenant and his son are not separate and are living jointly.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid release application filed by the landlord-respondent and denied the allegations made in the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. Before the prescribed authority, the parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidence and the prescribed authority after considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and the materials on record have recorded a finding that the need of the landlord is bonafide and further that since the tenant has acquired another house in Mohalla Jai Jai Ram in the same municipality in the name of his son, who is living with the landlord, therefore, he can comfortably shift to that house, which is purchased in the name of his son. The prescribed authority further found that since the petitioner-tenant has not made any effort to find out any alternative accommodation after the filing of the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act by the landlord, therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case reported in 1984 (1) A.R.C., 113-N.S. Datta and Ors. v. The VIIth Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and Ors., the tenant cannot take defence regarding his alleged hardship. The prescribed authority therefore, vide order dated 23rd November, 2002, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'13' to the writ petition, allowed the application filed by the landlord and released the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord.