KANI DEVI Vs. FIRST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE BAHARAICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMARBIR Singh Gill, J. Petitioners are legal representatives of Sumer Mai Kothari, deceased, who was tenant in a por tion of the house in mohalla Qazipura, city Bahraich and was running the business by the name and style of Rajasthan Tent House. The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 13-3-1988 passed by Munsif Bahraich (Annexure-5) and the judgment dated 13-12 1988 of the District Judge, Bah raich by which both the authorities under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act XIII of 1972) have allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Janki Devi, owner/landlady of the por tion of the house in occupation of tenant Sumer Mai filed an application under Sec tion 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 for ejectment of Sumer Mai, tenant, on the ground of bona fide requirement for her own accupation and for the purposes of exten sion of the business being run by her grand son. THE landlady claimed that she alongwith her widowed daughter, her son alongwith wife and children are residing in the upper portion of the house and her family consists of seven persons and is de pendent upon the business of her grand son Ravi Prakash Goel which is not sufficient for the survival of the entire family. She herself is too old and she is being looked after by Ravi Prakash Goel, her daughter's son who are living with her and there is no proper place for Ravi Prakash Goel to run his business and he is using a wooden plat form to place upon few household articles for sale. She wants to extend her business and wants to instal flour mill etc. in the portion in occupation of the tenant for the survival of her family. She claimed that her tenant has built a big house in Chowk Bazar where he is carrying on the business in the name of "raj Hans Lodge" which was sub sequently changed to "sarika Lodge" where he can shift his tent house business. Besides, the tenant is carrying on business near Ohkar Talkies in the name of his eldest son and he has sufficient accommodation to shift if eviction is ordered. THE tenant is harassing her by filing false complaints and cases. .

(3.) IN appeal the learned District Judge has also affirmed the findings referring to the entire evidence on the issues and has given a finding of fact that the landlady bona fide required the premise for her own use and occupation besides that Ravi Prakash Goel was not stranger to the family and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant.