GAYATRI DEVI Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE, NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The petition stems from concurrent orders of release passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. Amarnath, the original tenant, breathed his last during the pendency of the release application. Thereafter, the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 4 and 5, being married daughters of the deceased tenant, were impleaded on record. The case was not contested by Smt. Madhuri Devi while it was contested by the petitioner and Smt. Anupurna Devi. The Prescribed Authority found that the need of the respondent -landlord was bona fide and genuine and further that the daughters of the deceased -tenant normally did not reside with the tenant at the time of his death and therefore, the question of comparative hardship could not arise. The appeal preferred against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, having met the fate of dismissal at the end of the 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act are vitiated for the reasons of non -consideration of the affidavits of Shyam Bihari and Kuldeep Kapoor, on behalf of the petitioner. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not commend itself for acceptance inasmuch as the affidavits have been referred to in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. The petitioner could not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim that she was normally residing with her father at the time of his death. Neither the voter -list nor any ration -card was filed in support of her case. The finding arrived at by the authorities under the Act is a finding of fact and cannot be characterised as perverse. The learned Counsel, however, filed certain documents alongwith the suppl. affidavit and stated that the documents were entrusted to the Counsel representing her before the Prescribed Authority and it was the said Counsel who, for reasons best known to him, did not file those documents. I am afraid, these documents which were not brought on record at the end of the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority cannot be taken aid of for challenging the impugned orders at this stage. In view of categorical finding that the need of the respondent -landlord was bona fide and genuine and the further finding that the petitioner was normally not residing with her father at the time of his death, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, commiseratingly submitted that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner may be allowed a year's time to vacate the premises. Sri Rajesh Tandon appearing for the respondent -landlord agreed across the bar for the time being given to the petitioner to vacate the premises, however, subject to the undertaking agreeing to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession to the petitioner on expiry of the said period. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed subject to the condition that the impugned order shall not be enforced for a period of one year provided the petitioner files undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within two months agreeing therein to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession to the respondent landlord immediately on expiry of the period aforestated.