CHETAN PRAKASH Vs. A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are tenants of accommodation in question have challenged the order dated 27th January, 2006, passed by the appellate authority, under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act') whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord against the order of the prescribed authority under the Act dated 30th August, 2003 by which release application filed by the landlord was dismissed by prescribed authority, the copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that respondent No. 3 Smt. Hema Agrawal filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act before the prescribed authority for release of the accommodation in question in her favour on the ground that the petitioners-tenants are residing on the first floor portion of the accommodation in question, which is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction and further that the condition of the accommodation in question is so toad as if it is not demolished and re-constructed then it will damage the life of the people who are living in it. The landlord further asserted that she has sufficient funds for demolition and re-construction of the accommodation in question apart from the sanctioned map from the local body concerned it is further asserted that the tenants are not vacating the said portion of the accommodation in question as they want some heavy amount as pagri (premium) from the landlord.

(3.) The petitioners-tenants denied the allegations made in the aforesaid application filed by the landlord and stated that earlier his father Daya Ram was the tenant of the accommodation in question and after his death, he is in occupation of the same. It is further asserted by the tenant that earlier Smt. Kailashi Devi wife of Raghvendra Kripal was the landlord, but later on Smt. Hema Agrawal has purchased this accommodation to which the tenant has no knowledge and that in the application under Section 21(1)(b) of 'the Act' the landlord has not mentioned about the other tenants and also as to how many tenants are on the first floor. It has been further asserted by the tenants that on the ground floor, there are four shops in which the tenants are doing their business and the construction on the ground floor as well as on the first floor are in good condition, it is not correct that the accommodation in dispute may fall down. The tenants further stated that earlier Smt. Kailashi Devi, who was earlier landlord of the accommodation in question, had also filed similar application in the year 1990, but due to intervention of some people of the locality, the matter has been compromised as Smt. Kailashi Devi stated that she has got enhanced the rate of rent from Rs. 18.75 to Rs. 50 per month in which it was also agreed that the rent will not be enhanced in future. The tenants further asserted that first application was filed in the year 1990 and the present application has been filed in the year 2001, about eleven years have elapsed but till date no portion of the accommodation in question fallen down. The landlord reiterated that the tenants only want some heavy amount as pagri, hence the submissions made by the tenants are totally false, as they are not responsible for loss of life of the people.