SUDHANGSHU KUMAR BANERJEE S/O LATE GOVIND CHANDRA BANERJEE Vs. RADHEY CHARAN SHAN S/O LATE HANUMAN DAS AND PRABODH KUMAR BANERJEE S/O LATE GOVIND CHANDRA BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of residential premises No. B -19/77 and B -19/77 -A of which the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent No. 1 is the landlord.

(2.) THE release application was filed on the pleas inter alia that the premises in question consisting of five rooms, verandah, lavatory, bathroom, kitchen etc. is bonafide required by the respondent landlord; the family of landlord consists of himself, his wife, three sons and one daughter and are residing in three rooms situate on trie ground floor. It was further alleged that the elder son Alok has done graduation and the other son is doing B.Sc. and the daughter is a school going student. It was also alleged that the petitioner tenant is a harden litigant and is not vacating the disputed premises although he has got his own residential house in Mohalla Kabir Nagar Colony, Durgapur, Varanasi, simply to harass the landlord. It was registered as P.A. Case No. 24 of 2001.

(3.) THE parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The Prescribed Authority by its Judgment and order dated May 2nd, 2003 dismissed the release application on the ground that the need of the landlord respondent is not bonafide and genuine in as much as in the SCC revision No. 123 of 1994 he entered into a compromise in the year 995 and under the said compromise he got the possession of the ground floor and the tenant is entitled to live as such on the first floor and the second floor along with his wife and daughter, during his life time. The Prescribed Authority was of the view that the landlord respondent was aware of the fact that in due course of time his sons and daughter will be of grown up age and even then he agreed to permit the petitioner tenant to live during his life time, shows that the need is not bonafide and genuine. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid Judgment and order, Rent Control Appeal No. 87 of 2003 was filed by the landlord respondent, under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The said appeal has been allowed by the impugned order dated February 9th, 2004 by the court below and the tenanted portion has been released in favour of the landlord respondent.