RAM KALI Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, SULTANPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the landlady seeks to get rid off the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and there­after by the appellate authority under the U.P. Act 13 of 1972.

(2.) THE brief facts are these: The petitioner moved an application under Section 21 of the said Act for the release of the accommodation in the occupation of respondent No. 3 situated in Mohalla Shahganj, Sultanpur. The said respondent occupies the said accommodation as a tenant thereof on a monthly rent of Rs.15/- and keeps his shop and deals in German silver utensils, Chalini and other articles. The pe­titioner pressed her application under Section 21 of the ground that the accommodation in dispute was bona fide needed by her for occu­pation. She also claimed that a part of the accommodation was in a dilapidated condition and needed reconstruction. The petitioner's point was that her husband Ramdeo happened to be a tenant in a shop which was situated in the premises owned by one Ram Bharosey. The said Ram Bharosey had initiated proceedings for the release of the shop against her husband under Section 21 of the said Act. It was alleged that the extent of the shop was insufficient for the needs of her husband. Moreover in view of the pendency of the application under Section 21 in respect of the said shop, it was incum­bent that the landlady in the interest of her husband's business should herself initiate proceedings under Section 21 against the res­pondent No. 3 in respect of the accommodation in dispute. It was a] so alleged by the landlady that the respondent No. 3 had three houses of his own and he could shift to any one of them.

(3.) THE application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the landlady had failed to make other case for personal occupation. It was also held that no part of the building was dila­pidated or needed reconstruction. When the matter went to the lower appellate court, the latter held the application to be maintain­able and the accommodation in dispute was held to be covered by the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. In view of Rule 17 of the rules framed under the said Act, the lower appellate court affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority on the question whether the building was liable to be released on the ground of its alleged need for reconstruction. It was held that as the requirements of Rule 17 had not been applied in the instant case, therefore it was not open to the landlady to seek release of the accommodation on the ground that any part of the accommodation needed reconstruction. On the question of the landlady's need to occupy the accommodation in dispute the lower appellate court held that the application which was pending against the husband of the petitioner under Section 21 of the said Act could not afford a good ground to the landlady for initiating action under Section 21 in respect of the disputed accommodation in as much as the former application against the landlady's husband had not till then been decided by the Prescribed Authority. The lower appellate court, however, itself observed: -