HARISH CHANDRA Vs. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Property in dispute is a three storied building occupying an area of about 450 sq. feet. The ground floor consists of a big Hall. On the first floor there are two rooms and other amenities like kitchen etc. On the second floor there is one room, one Varandah and open space Mother of both the petitioners Harish Chandra and Dinesh Chandra purchased the property in dispute from its previous owners through registered sale deed dated 7.8.1976 since before its purchase accommodation in dispute was under tenancy occupation of Ram Shanker Agarwal, who was carrying on business there from in the name of Messrs Popular Gramophone Saloon, which was sole proprietorship of Ram Shankar Agarwal. During pendency of proceedings before courts below Sri Ram Shanker Agarwal, the original tenant died and was survived by respondents 1 to 10 Respondent No. 1 also died during pendency of the writ petition and was survived only by respondents 2 to 10.

(2.) Petitioners filed release application, giving rise to the instant writ petition on the ground of bonafide need, in November 1979 under Section 21 of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 against M/S Popular (Gramophone Saloon and Ram Shanker Agarwal. Release application was registered as Rent Case No. 237 of 1979. The municipal number of the accommodation in dispute is 18/180 Kursawan, the Mall, Kanpur. Shrimati Kamla Devi the mother of the petitioners had died before filing of the release application. The rent of the accommodation in dispute is Rs. 94.31 per month. The current rent for the building may be about 200 times of the existing rent.

(3.) In the release application it was stated that tenant Ram Shanker Agarwal was using first and second floor portion of the accommodation in dispute, for residential purpose and ground floor for commercial purpose. The tenant denied the said assertion and stated that the entire building was taken on rent for commercial purpose and was being used as such. It was further stated that only occasionally under great pressure of business proprietor of the firm stayed for a day or two in the first and second floors. However, those portions were also basically used for commercial purpose like Godown, store room etc. Lot of evidence was led by both the parties and lot of space was occupied by both the courts below in their judgments regarding the availability of other residential accommodation to the tenant. In my opinion, it was not at all necessary. When tenant asserted that he was not using any portion of the building in dispute for residential purpose, there was absolutely no occasion to decide as to whether any other residential accommodation was available to the tenant or not. Decision on the said point either way could not have made any difference.