DURGA PRASAD Vs. SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A landlord from Meerut impugns the order in appeal under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 of the Second Additional District Judge, Meerut by which the release application under Section 21 of the Act allowed by the Prescribed Authority, has been rejected. It is on record that the landlord was seeking an additional accommodation for the members of his family. Amongst these members were two married daughters and their children; under the law, these daughters would otherwise not come within the meaning of 'family', but the landlord contended that they resided with him as his daughters' relations with their in-laws were strained. The need of the landlord was considered by the Prescribed Authority for the totality of the numbers mentioned in the application under Section 21.

(2.) The landlord has five sons; four are married. The quantum of accommodations as noticed by the District Judge on record are 7 big rooms and in addition a latrine, a bathroom and a kitchen. The accommodation available with the tenant is one small room, one verandah and a small court-yard. The tenant is a widow and lives with her daughter who was married, but divorced. The landlord contended, and is on record on the application seeking release, that the accommodation with him was restricted for reasons that of the two rooms, on the ground floor, one was required to keep goats and sheep as he traded in them and the other was in a dilapidated condition. Thus a part of the accommodation was not usable and he attempted to make out a case that he should have the accommodation in the occupancy of the tenant.

(3.) The Prescribed Authority granted permission for eviction of the tenant, the widow and her daughter. The District Judge set aside the judgment of the Prescribed Authority.