LAXMAN Vs. FIRST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. No one ap peared on behalf of the respondents at the time of hearing even though the cases were taken up in the revised list.

(2.) BOTH these writ petitions have been filed by tenants of the same landlords. Tenanted accommodations in both the writ petitions are separate two parts of the same house i. e. House No. D- 6/30 Mohalla Tripura Bhairvi, Rani Bhawani Gali, Varanasi. Landlords respondents No. 3 and 4 in both the writ petitions, viz. Dr. Ram Rang Sharma and Sri Bhismapitamah Sharma, filed release applications on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Release application filed against tenant-petitioner of the second writ petition was numbered as P. A. Case No. 43 of 1985. Release ap plication filed against Jawahar and his son Laxman was numbered as P. A. Case No. 42 of 1985. Jawahar, the father died before filing of the first writ petition and was survived by Laxman, petitioner No. 1 and other legal repre sentatives, who are petitioners 2 to 7 in the first writ petition. Jawahar and Lax man were tenants of two rooms either jointly or separately. Even if they were separate tenants, it will not make much difference as Jawahar has died and Laxman, his brothers and mother have inherited the tenancy of Jawahar. Similarly, Mahangi, the petitioner of second writ petition, was also tenant of one room. Rate of rent payable by Mahangi is Rs. 7 per month and total rent payable by Jawahar and Laxman was Rs. 15 per month (Rupees 5 per month for one room and Rs. 10 per month for the other room ).

(3.) HOWEVER before the Appellate Court an affidavit was filed by the tenants asserting therein that during the pendency of the case four rooms of the house in question had been va cated by their tenants and let out again to new tenants by the landlords. An ap plication was also filed for verification of" the said fact through Advocate Commissioner. Appellate Court on 11-5-1987 passed an order on the said ap plication to the effect that calling for the report of the Advocate Commissioner would amount to taking on record addi tional evidence and whether any addi tional evidence was required or not would be decided at the time of hearing of the appeal and if at the time of hear ing of appeal; it was found that it was necessary to issue Commission then it would be done. The said order is quoted in para 20 of the writ petition. Unfortunately while deciding the appeal after more than four years from the said order, the Appellate Court did not say anything in its judgment regarding the necessity or otherwise of issuing the Commission. Similarly Appellate Court also did not say anything in its judg ment regarding allegation of the tenants that during pendency of the cases four rooms had been vacated by the old tenants and they were again let out by the landlords to the new tenants. If this allegation was correct then it could have material bearing on the decision of the appeal.