URMILA DEVI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed by the landlady is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.4.1987, 20.4.1987 and 10.12.1985, passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 whereby the application of the landlady for declaration of vacancy and subsequent release in her favour has been dismissed.

(2.) The dispute relates to two rooms situated on the ground floor of house No. 109/357, Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur of which the petitioner is the landlady and one Radhey Shyam Sonkar was the tenant of the aforesaid disputed accommodation. It is alleged that the family of Radhey Shyam consisted of himself his wife Smt. Shitla Devi and five sons and two daughters namely Nand Lal, Jaswant, Sri Krishna, Balwant, Suraj, Urmila and Km. Manno. Radhey Shyam Sonkar acquired vacant accommodation comprising of 107/3, Dwarikapuri Bazar, Kanpur, further his son Nand Lal purchased House No. 107A/6 Chandra Nagar, Kanpur in the name of his wife Smt. Saroj. It was further alleged that Radhey Shyam acquired two quarters at 107/3B, Dwarikapuri Bazar, Kanpur and plot No. 257, Dwarikapuri Bazar, Kanpur. On these allegations the landlady (petitioner) filed an application for declaration of vacancy and for release in view of the provisions contained under Section 12(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that the tenant and members of his family have purchased and acquired different accommodation therefore, deemed vacancy had occurred. This was registered as Case No. 118 of 1984. On the said application report was called for from the Rent Control Inspector who submitted his report-dated 24.5.1984 in which it was reported that House No. 109/357, Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur is owned by Smt. Urmila Devi (petitioner). It was further reported that the widow of Radhey Shyam Sonkar and son of Radhey Shyam Sonkar were residing in the disputed accommodation. It was further reported that Balwant Kumar and Nand Lal sons of Radhey Shyam were residing in House No. 107/6A, Chandra Nagar, Kanpur. The Rent Control Inspector has further mentioned in his report that in the House No. 107/6A, Chandra Nagar, further constructions were made and it has about four rooms, court yard, latrine, bathroom, etc. and further that Radhey Shyam had acquired two shops where his sons were carrying on business of selling pig meat. Both the parties exchanged affidavits before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.

(3.) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 10.12.1985 came to the conclusion that Radhey Shyam had died in 1983 and any accommodation acquired by any of his heirs after his death would not attract the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act and further the acquisition of House No. 107/6 Chandra Nagar in which Nand Lal was residing was in the name of his wife who did not fall within the definition of the family of tenant and, therefore, there was no vacancy and he accordingly rejected the application of the landlord for declaration of vacancy and release. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady (petitioner) filed revision under Section 18 of the Act which was registered as Rent Control Revision No. 219 of 1985. The 7th Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 20.4.1987 dismissed the revision relying upon judgment in case of Chet Ram v. Bhagwan Das 1985 (2) ARC 18 and also in the case of Mohd. Azim v. District Judge, Aligarh 1985 (2) ARC 89, held that only in such case where the heirs who resided with the tenant at the time of his death alone, if had acquired any accommodation prior to his death would be covered by Section 12(3) of the Act and not if any of the heirs after the death of the main tenant acquired any house. In such cases it cannot be held that there existed any vacancy inasmuch as all the heirs would be joint tenants and they would have individual interest.