RAJ KUMARI Vs. IIND A D J JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Both these writ petitions have been filed by the tenants against the same judgments and orders passed against them by the prescribed authority as well as appellate court in proceedings for release of accommodation in dispute (shop No. 349 Sadar Bazar, Jhansi) on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 initiated by original landlord respondent No. 3 Radha Kishan Agarwal. The release application was registered as Case No. 88 of 1984 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Munsif I, Jhansi. Release application was allowed on 19.4.1985. Against the said judgment and order tenants/petitioners of second writ petition filed R.C. Appeal No. 30 of 1985. Appeal was dismissed by IInd Additional District Judge, Jhansi, through judgment and order dated 21.2.1987, hence these writ petitions.

(2.) INITIALLY Gulab Chand was the original tenant and after his death Prem Chand became the tenant. When release application was filed Prem Chand had also died. In the release application sons, wife and daughters of Prem Chand were impleaded as opposite parties. Release application was contested only by the sons and widow of Prem Chand who are petitioners in the second writ petition and who alone had filed appeal. Raj Kumari one of the daughters of late Prem Chand who was also one of the opposite parties in the release application filed an application before the appellate court in R.C. Appeal No. 30 of 1985 stating therein that she was not served before the prescribed authority. Appellate court thoroughly disbelieved the said version and held that she was properly served. In any case her brothers and mother fully protected the interest of all the tenants. They contested the proceedings tooth and nail and it cannot be said that they ignored interest of Raj Kumari. There is absolutely no fault in the order of the appellate court contained in its judgment rejecting the application of the Raj Kumari. First writ petition, which is directed against the said part of the judgment of appellate court, is therefore, dismissed.

(3.) IN respect of comparative hardship courts below held that tenant was not doing any substantial business from the shop in dispute and according to sales record filed before the courts below, the income of the tenants from the shop in dispute was shown to be only about Rs. 3,000 per year. It was also found by the courts below that tenants were doing thekedari business and that they had two houses numbered as 24A and 80 and that tenants were also doing the business of thekedari therefrom. It was also found that both the houses of the tenants were situate in that very locality in which shop in dispute was situate, i.e., Sadar Bazar, Jhansi and house No. 24A was on the road. It was also found that tenants did not make any efforts to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application.