KRISHNA Vs. SHYAM LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by an order dated 9.5.1983 (Annexure 9 to the petition) passed by the Appellate Authority in the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) whereunder allowing the appeal of the landlord Respondent No. 1, the application for release of the accommodation in dispute was granted and the tenant-petitioner was granted three months' time to vacate the premises in dispute, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the reversal of impugned order.

(2.) THE facts in brief, shorn of details as are necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The landlord-respondent, his brother Sunder Lal Sharma and mother Smt. Tejwati filed an application seeking release of the accommodation in dispute initiating the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act in the year 1978. The claim of the landlord was contested by the tenant petitioner on various grounds asserting that the alleged need set up by the landlord was not genuine and bona fide and the tenant was likely to suffer greater hardship as compared to the landlord in the event of the grant of the application. During the pendency of the case, Shyam Lal Sharma Respondent No. 1 moved an application under rule 22(d) of the Rules framed under the Act alleging that a family settlement had been arrived at between him and his brother and their mother on 19.10.1979 whereby the portion in occupation of the tenant (petitioner) had fallen exclusively to his share and so he alone had become the landlord. Instead of the need of the three applicants, the sole need of Shyam Lal Sharma and his family was substituted. In his additional written statement, the tenant challenged the exclusive ownership of Shyam Lal Sharma and the need of the landlord. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions in the Court of Ist Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur. The learned Prescribed Authority held that there had been a family settlement whereby the premises in dispute under the tenancy of the petitioner fell to the share of the landlord Respondent No. 1. It was further held that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was not sufficient to cater to the need of his family which consists of 11 members. The need of the landlord was held to be bona fide and pressing and that he would suffer greater hardship in case the application is rejected as compared to the hardship of the tenant. However, the application was rejected on the sole ground that it was not maintainable unless a fresh lease comes into existence with the consent of the parties after the family partition.

(3.) IN the petition before this Court, the learned Counsel for the tenant has argued; firstly, that the release application was not maintainable unless a fresh lease is executed and secondly, that the requirement of the landlord was neither bona fide nor pressing and that the tenant would suffer greater hardship if the application of the landlord for the release of the premises in dispute is allowed. After giving my careful consideration to both the aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find the same to be wholly without merit.