SATYA DEV TIWARI Vs. UMA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 24th May, 1999, passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 23rd August, 2003, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenant against the order passed by the prescribed authority by which the prescribed authority has allowed the release application filed by the respondent-landlady, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure Nos. 'V' and 'VI', respectively, to the writ petition.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent-landlady 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 against the petitioners, who are the tenant of the accommodation in question for the release of the accommodation in question in possession of the tenant-petitioners on the ground of bona fide requirement with the allegations that the petitioners-tenant are in occupation of two rooms and one dalan on the first floor as tenants and that the landlady, who is a widow, has four grown up adult sons and the landlady has purchased the aforesaid accommodation at the time when her sons were minor. With the passage of time, the sons have grown up and the requirement of the landlady for the grown up children is now compelling to get additional accommodation which is in possession of the tenant-petitioners. The four grown up adult sons of the landlady are aged about 27 years, 25 years, 23 years and 21 years, respectively and that the landlady has no kitchen and she cooks her meal in the dalan. The landlady also asserted that the eldest son of the landlady is mentally retarted and the marriage of the other sons could not be performed because of the paucity of the accommodation, it was therefore prayed by the landlord that the accommodation in possession of the tenant may be released in favour of the landlady, as she required the additional accommodation bona fide. It is further asserted that the landlady served a notice for eviction of the petitioners and the release application was filed by the landlady on the ground that the landlady requires the accommodation in question for her bona fide requirement, which may be released in her favour. The petitioners-tenant contested the aforesaid release application by filing written statement before the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that the release application has been filed after service of six months notice, as is required under law and further that the need of the landlady is bona fide. The prescribed authority further found that tenant-petitioner No. 2 had obtained an accommodation in vacant condition when the same was allotted to him by Kanpur Development Authority in Barra Colony, Kanpur, which he has let out on rent and is residing with petitioner No. 1. The prescribed authority further found as of fact and has recorded finding that the need of the landlady is bona fide for the additional accommodation and further that since petitioner No. 2, who has got an accommodation in Barra Colony, Kanpur in vacant position, but instead of occupying the same has let it out, therefore the accommodation in question deserves to be released in favour of the landlady and the prescribed authority vide its order dated 24th May, 1999 allowed the release application filed by the landlady and released the accommodation in question in favour of the landlady.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-tenant preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the appellate authority and argued the same points before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after considering the evidence on record and after discussing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have affirmed the findings with regard to bona fide requirement of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlady. The appellate authority further found that there is sufficient material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner No. 2 has obtained two house bearing house Nos. 11/762 E.W.S.-4, Barra, Kanpur and E-275 Block E.W.S., Scheme E.W.S., Daheli, Sujanpur in vacant position, which he has let out to others on rent, therefore the comparative hardship need not be considered, as the case of the tenant-petitioners is covered by the Explanation of Section 21 of the Act. The aforesaid fact of getting possession of two accommodations, referred to above, has been disputed by the petitioners-tenants before the appellate authority and the tenants have submitted that merely because the Kanpur Development Authority has allotted the aforesaid accommodation in favour of petitioner No. 2, the petitioner No. 2 would not become the owner of the said accommodation, therefore the Explanation relied upon by the landlady would not apply to her case. For the ready reference, the Explanation carved out under Section 21 of the Act.