SHAILENDRA KUMAR DWIVEDI Vs. PREM KISHORE UPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant, by means of present writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 19th January, 1995, passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 24th September, 2004, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-4 and 11 to the writ petition.

(2.) The facts of the present case, in brief, are that the petitioner is the tenant of the accommodation in question and the respondents are the landlord. The landlord filed an application Under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, before the prescribed authority for release of the accommodation i.e., House No. 38/107, Gilish Bazar, Kanpur on the ground that the landlord-respondent is an employee of Indian Air Force, who was posted out of Kanpur and since his retirement is due in the month of April, 1991, he was posted at Kanpur, so that he can arrange his future with a view that he may pass peaceful retired life. In the accommodation in question, where the landlord is residing, there is no kitchen at all and the cooking is being done in one of the room of the first floor, which is used as kitchen-cum-house. The landlord further stated in his application Under Section 21(1)(d) of the Act that the landlord has large family, as against this the opposite party-tenant has got only four members in his family. The landlord has set up the need that the landlord requires one bedroom for landlord No. 1 and his wife ; one bedroom for his son Sudhir Kumar Upadhyaya and his wife ; one drawing room for visitors and one room for guests who stay overnight. The landlord further, stated that his other sons, namely Shailendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Sanjay Kumar Upadhyaya have also grown up adult and are of marriageable age and their marriages are postponed due to paucity of residential accommodation at the disposal of the landlord, therefore, two bedrooms will be required for these two sons, mentioned above and one room for kitchen and one room for poojaghar. These requirements can be met only with the release of the accommodation in question, which is occupied by the tenant-petitioner. The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid release application and denied the allegations made by the landlord stating that the contesting respondents-landlord in fact do not have any bona fide requirement.

(3.) The prescribed authority after exchange of the pleadings and the affidavits have found that the need of the landlord is bona fide and further that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord. The prescribed authority therefore vide its order dated 19th January, 1995 allowed the application filed by the landlord Under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act and directed the release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord by evicting the tenant-petitioner.