KRIPA SHANKAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Prabha Shanker Sinha, since deceased, represented by legal representatives and heirs, filed the writ petition for a declaration that Section 5 of Ordinance No.8 of 1984 which substituted new Explanation III to Section 21 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is ultra vires of the Constitution and also challenged the judgment and orders dated 5-3-1979 and 15-9-1984 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Munsif), Ballia and the District Judge, Ballia, respectively.

(2.) Premisess No.D/ 113 Mohalla Midhi, Ballia is owned by the respondent No.4 as owner and landlord and the petitioner was a tenant. An application was filed on 27-3-1978 by the respondent No.4 that he is a Warrant Officer in Air Force posted at Delhi and his son is studying at Ballia. He required the premises in dispute for residence of his son and wife. The respondent had said that the accommodation in question fell in his share in the family partition. He needed the house in question for residence of his family members, wife and son who lived at Ballia. The repondent stated that he being a Warrant Officer, cannot keep his family along with him at all places. He has no other place for residence of his son and wife. The respondent pleaded that the tenant-petitioner are resident of Suremanpur where he has a house and his sons lived there, engaged in agricultural and cultivation. The petitioner was said to have retired from service and there was no necessity for him to stay in the City of Ballia. The landlord's application for release was contested by the petitioner. He had denied that there was any partition between the landlord and his brother. He also said that the accommodation in tenance of the petitioner had not come in the share of the respondent's landlord. As such, he was not the landlord, in the eye of law. The house in question was a property of opposite party No.4's father Sri Brij Nath Sahai, who used to realise the rent from the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that the landlord's wife does not stay with her son at Ballia but she lives with the respondent No.4 at Delhi. It was also said that the respondent's son lives as a member of the joint family with his father. The need for release of the house was incorrect. The landlord has no genuine need for the accommodation in question. The petitioner also said that his ancestral house at Suremanpur fell down in the floods of 1955 and he has no other place to live. The Prescribed Authority after examining the oral evidence and affidavit of Sri Brij Nath Sahai, father of the respondent No. 4 recorded a finding to the effect that he is the landlord of the said accommodation qua petitioner. The Prescribed Authority relied on Section 21(1) of Explanlation III of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and held that the respondent No. 4's son was studying at Ballia, and respondent No. 4's wife also lived at Ballia. He found that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine. The respondent No. 4 in his affidavit at para 9 stated that the tenant has built a house at Adarsh Nagar Mauja Gangapur. The details of the boundry of the said house was also stated in the affidavit. The petitioner had not denied the said fact. In para 11 of his affidavit, Sri Kripa Shanker Sinha petitioner had only said that he was not living at Suremanpur. He has not denied that he has not built a house at Gangapur. Admittedly, the tenant-petitioner has retired from the service. There was no necessity of his living in the City at Ballia.

(3.) The Prescribed Authority found that the need of the landlord was genuine and bona fide and unless the release application was allowed, the landlord shall suffer irreparably and there would be greater hardship to him in that event. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the District Judge.