RADHEY SHYAM Vs. IVTH A D J ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by landlords respondents 3 to 7, on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application was registered as U.P.U.B. Case No. 43 of 1979 on the file of Prescribed Authority/1st Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh. In the release application, the five landlords stated that initially Ganga Sahai, their predecessor-in-interest was the owner-landlord of the house in dispute which was let out by him to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 30. It was also stated that Smt. Krishna Devi, respondent No. 3 had been turned out of her husband's house on the ground that no issue was born to her and she was residing at Aligarh alongwith her mother, respondent No. 4 in a tenanted house @ Rs. 25 per month which consisted of only a small room with common latrine, bath room, etc. which were shared by other tenants of adjoining rooms also. It was also stated that the other landlords, i.e., sons of Late Ganga Sahai were residing at Bhopal. The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application on 24.7.1980 against which landlords respondents filed U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 41 of 1980, which was allowed by 1st Additional District Judge, Aligarh on 16.7.1981. The said judgment of the appellate court is challenged in this writ petition by the tenant.

(2.) THE prescribed authority held that the kothari in which the landlord-respondents 3 and 4, i.e., mother and daughter were residing was owned by Ram Charan Lal, who was their near relation, hence he had given the said kothari to the said ladies as licensees without any rent. THE prescribed authority held that firstly the two ladies were residing comfortably as licensee in a kothari at Aligarh and secondly, they could very well go to Bhopal to reside with respondents 5 to 7 who were sons of Mahadevi respondent No. 4 and brothers of respondent No. 3 hence their need was not bona fide. THE least, which can be said about this approach, is that it was cruel, sadistic and terrible. A lady who has been turned out by her husband is seeking release of her property for her residence and still the Prescribed Authority holds the need not to be bona fide. In the circumstances of the case, the need was not only bona fide but was pressing and urgent. Residing as a licensee or tenant is no ground to reject release application on the ground of bona fide need. In this regard reference may be made to G. K. Devi v. Ghanshyam, AIR 2000 SC 656 and N. E. Kshirsagar v. M/s. Traders and Agencies, AIR 1997 SC 59. THE appellate court, therefore, rightly held that bona fide need had been proved.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary-affidavit.