TARAWATI Vs. AMBIKA PRASAD DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Tarawati, the landlady, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 21-5-1974 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 22 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) allowing the tenant's appeal and rejecting the application for release made by the landlady under Section 21 of the Act.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner and landlady of house No. 105/262, Gandhi Chowk, Kanpur. THE opposite party No. 1 is a tenant in a portion of the said house on a monthly rent of Rs. 90/-. THE petitioner applied for, release of the accommodation in the tenancy of the opposite party No. 1 on the allegations that her family consisted of herself, her daughter, namely Smt. Prem Lata, her son-in-law Sri Shiva Nand Agnihotri, her grand daughter and her grand sons, besides a maid servant. It was alleged that Smt. Prem Lata was residing with her mother even after her marriage. She was the Principal of Guru Nanak Inter College, Kanpur and her husband was a Supervisor in the Inspectorate of Central Store, Kanpur. THE grand daughter was said to be a student of M.B.B.S. (V year). One grand son was a student of III year of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur while another grand-son was a student of the I year in the said Institute. THE petitioner claimed to have opened a Nursery School in the adjoining premises No. 105/263, the owner of which was pressing her to vacate the same. THE benefit of Explanation 4 to Section 21 of the Act was also claimed by the landlady on the ground that the accommodation occupied by the opposite party No. 1 was separated from the remaining accommodation in the house by a mere wall and the two portions were connected with each other "and some portions were actually in common use of the landlady and the tenant.

(3.) AT the very outset I may point out that the finding of the Appellate Authority that the two :portions of the house are distinct and separate from each other so as to make Explanation 4 to Section 21 inapplicable is well founded and cannot be disturbed. On the question of the alleged need of the landlady the categorical finding of the Appellate Authority is that she is already in occupation of five rooms and a store besides two verandahs and a gallery which is quite sufficient for her requirements and therofore her claim for additional accommodation which is in occupation of the opposite party No. 1 is not genuine. In my opinion this finding alone is sufficient to disentitle the landlady to a release order in her favour under Section 21(1) (c) of the Act.