LAXMI NARAIN Vs. RAM DULARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (herein after called the Act) and the order passed in revision by the District Judge in view of Section 43(2) (m) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Re gulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,, 1972. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had granted permission to institute the suit. The revision was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the needs of the tenant have not been compared with those of the landlord and there is no finding on the basis of such comparison that the need of the landlord is greater than that of the tenant. There appears to be merit in this contention. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, while con sidering the needs of the tenant held that he had a share in a house left by his father and he along with his stepmother had inherited the same, and therefore, the tenant could not deemed to be a person without any accommodation. The other ground given by the officer is that there are earning members in the tenant's family and all of them with joint income can take a house at higher rent. There is, however, no finding that the need of the landlord is greater than that of the tenant.

(2.) THE learned Additional District Judge has gone even a step back. He has only recorded the finding that there was a house. No. 59/14 Nachghar, which stood previously in the name of the father of the tenant and was admittedly in the possession of his stepmother. On this basis he found that the tenant can have a share in the same. Even if this finding is accepted it would only mean that the tenant has a share in a house which is not in his possession but in the possession of his stepmother, and that he can file a suit for partition and obtain possession over a share. Mere ownership of property is not sufficient to fulfil the needs of a citizen. For the purpose of residence he needs immediate actual possession of the property. Further, there is no finding by the Additional District Judge that the need of the landlord to have the additional accommodation was greater than the need of the tenant to occupy the building. It is thus apparent that he has not applied his mind to the relevant consi derations, and has not recorded the necessary finding.