MUNNI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition. The tenant is adamant to protract her possession indefinitely. Rent Control Act protects the possession of the tenant in certain contingencies. However some times it is misused by tenants to protract their tenancy. Since the time of filing of the release application by landlord respondent No. 3 Yogendra Singh on the ground of bonafide need, petitioner is continuously harping on the fact that she is a widow, even though she has got several sons who must be of middle age by now. Weak people do require some extra protection however they can not be permitted to use their weakness as sword. It can be used only as a shield.

(2.) Landlord respondent No. 3 Yogendra Singh initiated proceedings for release / eviction against tenant petitioner on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. case No. 2 of 1980. Property in dispute from which eviction of tenant petitioner was sought is a house, rent of which is only Rs. 12/- per month. Release application was allowed by prescribed authority, Jhansi and appeal of the tenant filed against the said order was also dismissed by IV Additional District Judge, Jhansi on 17.5.1984. The said judgment and orders were challenged through writ petition No. 7928 of 1984. This court decided the said writ petition on 11.4.1985. Findings of bonafide need of landlord was confirmed. However both the judgments of prescribed authority and appellate court were set-aside through judgment dated 11.4.1985 on the ground of comparative hardship. Through the said order matter was remanded to the prescribed authority only to consider the question of part release. It was also directed that prescribed authority should himself inspect the premises in dispute. Thereafter prescribed authority inspected the premises in dispute and placed on record its inspection report dated 9.7.1988. Thereafter release application was allowed only in part by prescribed authority/Civil Judge, Jhansi through judgment and order dated 19.12.1989. Two rooms of the accommodation in dispute were left in the tenancy of tenant petitioner. Open land 40 feet by 20 feet was released in favour of the landlord. It was further directed that the existing latrine in the tenancy occupation of tenant petitioner should stand released in favour of the landlord on the condition that landlord should construct latrine and bathroom at another place which was left in the tenancy occupation of the tenant.

(3.) There could not be a better order in favour of the petitioner than the one passed by the prescribed authority. However she did not feel satisfied by the said order and filed R.C. Appeal No. 5 of 1990. District Judge, Jhansi through judgment and order dated 9.2.1993, dismissed the appeal hence this writ petition.