MAHRAJ NARAIN KHANNA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition came to us on a reference made by a Division Bench at the time of its admission in view of a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Explanation (iv) of Section 21 (1) of the New Rent Control Act involved therein. The facts necessary for appreciating the question are as follows : House No. 83/B-12 situate in Mohalla Chauraha Gali, Moradabad, belonged to a joint family consisting of the petitioner, his father Har Govind Singh and three brothers viz. Hari Shankar, Sri Shankar and Jag Mohan. A partition took place between the members of the joint family in 1968. As a result of the aforesaid partition the property shown by yellow colour in the site plan attached with the partition deed came to the share of Mahraj Narain Khanna, the petitioner. This portion comprised of shops and godowns on the ground floor as well as a residential portion on the first floor. Mesho Saran, respondent No. 3, was a tenant of a portion shown in yellow colour which had fallen to the share of the petitioner. The accommodation in his possession consists of a room facing east, a tin-shed and a roof. Two rooms facing towards west were in use and occupation of the petitioner. There was one more room in the portion given to the petitioner in the partition and that was in the tenancy of one Abdul Sayeed.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under S.3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, hereinafter referred to as the Old Act, for permission to bring a suit for ejectment against respondent No. 3, in respect of the portion in his occupation as tenant on the ground that the said portion was bona fide required by him for occupation by himself. He alleged that there were eight members in his family including his father and sister but he had only two rooms in his occupation which were quite insufficient to meet his requirement. He also alleged in the application that the portion in which he was living had come to the share of his brother Hari Shankar and as the said portion was in dilapidated condition his brother was pressing upon him to vacate the same so that his brother could reconstruct the same after demolition. The petitioner further alleged in the application that after obtaining possession of the premises in occupation of respondent No. 3, he would also get the same demolished and construct a new building in its place.

(3.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application, holding that neither the need of the petitioner was genuine nor bona fide on 1-4-1972. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 3 (2) of the Old Act. During the pendency of this revision before the Commissioner, the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the New Act, came into force with effect from 15-7-1972. Consequent upon the enforcement of the said Act the revision filed by the petitioner stood transferred to the District Judge under Section 43 (m) of the New Act. The said revision was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 11-1-1973 with the finding that the accommodation in possession of the petitioner was quite sufficient and his need, therefore, could not be considered to be genuine. After having given the said finding the learned Additional District Judge considered the argument of the petitioner based on Explanation (iv) of Section 21 of the New Act and found that as the requirement of the aforesaid Explanation had not been satisfied by the petitioner, he was not entitled to get its benefit. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.