JAGDISH Vs. DINESH CHANDRA GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are tenant of the accommodation in question, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short 'the Act') dated 16.1.2006, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenants has been dismissed by the appellate authority against the order of the prescribed authority under 'the Act' dated 2.8.2004, by which the prescribed authority has allowed the release application filed by the respondents-landlords, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-5 and 3, respectively to the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that admittedly the respondents No. 1 and 2 are the landlords of the accommodation in dispute in which the petitioners are tenants. The landlords filed applications under Section 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of 'the Act' before the prescribed authority on the ground that the landlords bona fide requires the accommodation in question for their personal requirement and further that the ground floor portion of the accommodation in question is in dilapidated condition, which requires demolition and re-construction. This application was opposed by petitioner No. 1 by filing the written statement and the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 did not file any written statement and the matter proceeded ex parte against them before the prescribed authority. The petitioner No. 1 denied the allegations made by the landlords and admitted that Smt. Pushpa Devi, the petitioner No. 2 is separately residing along with her children. It is contended that the need of the landlords is neither bona Jlde, nor genuine. It is further asserted that the landlords have a very huge accommodation in their possession, besides the accommodation in question. The respondent No. 1 Dinesh Chandra Garg has another house situated at Kachchi Sarak, Mathura and the respondent No. 2 Ramesh Chandra Garg is residing outside Mathura, thus the landlords in fact do not require the accommodation in question, nor their so called requirement is bona fide. It is further alleged by the tenants that no married daughter or her husband of the landlords is residing with the landlords. In fact after the death of Natthl Lal, his wife Smt. Shreematl, the petitioner No. 4 and his married daughters are residing in the accommodation in question. The petitioners-tenants have also made effort to demonstrate that the sufficient accommodation is at the disposal of the landlords. The petitioners further raised an objection regarding maintainability of the present application under Section 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of 'the Act' on the ground that an earlier application under Section 21(1)(a) of 'the Act' filed by landlord has been dismissed, therefore the present application is not maintainable or in any view of the matter the findings recorded by the prescribed authority and affirmed by appellate authority on the question of bona Jide requirement shall be binding on the landlords.

(3.) The prescribed authority on the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that it is admitted fact that earlier application for release filed by the landlords, referred to above by the petitioners-tenants, was dismissed in year 1982 and the present application has been filed in the year 2003, whereas under the provision of Rule 18 of 'the Act', the second application under Section 21(1)(a) of 'the Act' would not be maintainable within one year of the disposal of the first application, therefore the objection raised by the petitioners-tenants that the second application, namely the present application filed by the landlords under Section 21(1)(a) of 'the Act' would not be maintainable, cannot be accepted and therefore rejected the contention of tenants. On the question of bona fide requirement, the prescribed authority have recorded finding that the need of the landlords is bona fide and so far as the tilt of the comparative hardship is concerned, the prescribed authority recorded finding in favour of the landlords and allowed the release application filed by the landlords vide order dated 2.8.2004 and directed the petitioners-tenants to vacate the accommodation in question.