PARMESHWARI DEVI Vs. SECOND ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Smt. Parmeshwari Devi widow of Dilawar Singh is the owner of Kothi No. 182, Prempuri Railway Road, Meerut which comprises of two separate and distinct residential accommodations. One such accommodation is the main bungalow which has been let out for the office of District Agricultural Officer, Meerut on a monthly rent of Rs. 250.00. The other accommodation consists of four rooms in a row each of 19' X 16' dimension with an attached latrine and bathroom. The two residential accommodations are separated by a lane 10' in width. The petitioner claims to be living in three out of four rooms aforesaid along with ten other members of her family. The 4th room has been let out to respondent No. 3 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25.00. The tenancy of respondent No. 3 was terminated by the petitioner by a notice dated 25-1-1972. In the compound of the Kothi mentioned above, there was a vacant piece of land measuring 65 sq. yards. It has been gifted by the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 19-8-1968 for the construction of a temple in memory of her deceased husband. On this land a temple has been constructed and Sri Baijnath Tewari, the Guruji of the petitioner is doing the Sewa and Puja of the deity in this temple. It is alleged that the accommodation in the possession of the petitioner was most inadequate to accommodate eleven members of her family who are huddled up in most uncongenial conditions. It is further urged that Rajendra Prasad Gautam her son was working as the Labour Officer in Sriram Chemical Industries, Kota till 1971. He resigned that job and established himself as the legal practitioner at Meerut. The accommodation in question was acquired for his professional work as well. That all her family members named in paragraph 4 of Annexure- '5' filed along with petition were actually residing in accommodation at present available with the petitioner. The petitioner desired to renovate and remodel the entire accommodation to suit her family needs. The petitioner thus requires the accommodation for her bona fide need.

(2.) AN application was filed under Section 3 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1947 for permission to file a suit for ejectment of respondent No. 3 from the premises in question. After the coming into force of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the said application was allowed to be converted into one under Section 21 of the new Act 13 of 1972 vide Annexure- '8' filed along with the writ petition.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the landlady (petitioner) vide his order dated 23- 10-1973. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed before the Additional District Judge, Meerut which was also dismissed on 10-1-1975; hence this petition.