RAM NATH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, VARANASI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's writ petition arising out of proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that on 11.12.1968 Ram Saran Lal, husband of opposite party No. 3 had purchased house No. K-64/52-A situate in Mohalla Gola Dina Nath in the city of Varanasi in the name of his wife and as such the later became its owner. The house is a small one inasmuch as it has shop, zina for the first floor and a chabutra on the ground floor and one room, a small verandah and latrine on the first floor. There is controversy on the point whether any construction exists on the second floor. The petitioner was a tenant of the shop in the ground floor from before the purchase of this house by opposite party No. 3. According to her, this house was purchased as it was post 1951 construction and was not governed by the provisions of the erstwhile, U.P. Act III of 1947 and she expected to get it whenever desired. At that time her husband was employed in Varanasi but sometime after he went out of employment and had to join another service at Kanpur. She along with her husband began to live there. In or about the year 1970 her husband's services were terminated even from there and it became necessary for them to go back to Varanasi and reside in their house. The accommodation on the first floor is much too small for their needs. They have no place to entertain their relations and friends. Her husband has no source of livelihood and would like to start some business in this shop. Besides it the water does not reach the first floor on account of low pressure and she would like to fix a water pipe in the first floor. She asserted her needs to be bonafide and also gave out that a number of shops have recently been constructed in the same locality and the tenant can easily have one of them. On those allegations she moved an application under Section 21 of the Act for release to the shop.

(3.) The petitioner tenant contested that application inter alia on the grounds that the landlord has no bonafide need and the application was moved simply to harass him with a view to enhance rent, that there is accommodation on the second floor also which can serve her purpose; that her husband has no desire or need to carry on business in the disputed shop and that he is carrying on Kirana and Parchuni business in this shop for the last 15 or 16 years and he will be completely ruined if he is required to vacte it. As regards other shops constructed in the same locality he have out that cannot be had without payment of handsome amount as Pagri, which he is not in a position to pay.