PRABHU DAYAL SAHU Vs. RAM KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) THIS writ petition by the tenant is directed against the order dated 19.5.95, Annexure 7, passed by the Appellate Court. The house in question is 55, Laxmi Gate, Jhansi. The landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act that he requires the house in question for his personal use because there are 13 members in his family and the accommodation which is in his possession (59, Laxmi Gate, Jhansi) is not sufficient. The application of the landlord was rejected vide Annexure 2 but on an appeal being filed by the landlord the matter was remanded by the Additional District Judge on 24th August, 1985. After remand the premises were inspected by the Rent Control Inspector. The application of the landlord was once again dismissed on 12th September, 1986. The landlord-petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed by the impugned order dated 18.5.1995.

(3.) THE question which arose for determination before the Courts below was whether the accommodation at 59, Laxmi Gate was sufficient for the need of the landlord. It appears that there are 13 members in the family of the landlord which consists of two married sons and therefore, it has been held by the Appellate Court that the house 59, Laxmi Gate is not sufficient.