SMT. RANI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner landlady by means of this writ petition seeks to challenge the order of the District Judge, Fatehpur dated 28th Sept., 1974 passed under Sec. 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) The petitioner applied for the release of the two shops in the possession of the respondents 2 and 3 and a hull behind the said shops in the possession of the respondents 4 and 5 under Sec. 21 of the Act. The case of the petitioner was that her father, Mannu Lal, was the owner of a big building. A portion of that building comprising the two shops and one hall behind the shops was sold to the petitioner by her father and she became the landlady of the premises in question. Her application for release was based on the ground that she needed the shops and the hall for bona fide requirement of her sons. This application was resisted by the respondent 2, 3, 4 and 5. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 27th March, 1974 allowed the application of the petitioner and held her need to be genuine and ordered for the eviction of the respondents 2 to 5 from the premises in question. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents 2 and 3 filed Rent Appeal No. 8 of 1974 and the respondents 4 and 5 filed Rent Appeal No. 11 of 1974. While the appeal of the respondents 4 and 5 was dismissed, the appeal of the respondents 2 and 3 was allowed. The result was that the shops were allowed to be retained by the respondents 2 and 3 but the hall behind the said shops was directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has now filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The principal contention on her behalf is that the only passage to the hall behind the two shops is through the said shops and the refusal to release the shops has resulted in an incongruous position, as the petitioner does not have an access to the hall behind the two shops from any other side. This point was raised before the Appellate Authority but was dealt within the following words:-