LAWS(ALL)-1997-9-259

PARMANAND Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANSI

Decided On September 01, 1997
PARMANAND Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANSI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Vivek Shandilya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. This is a tenant's petition for quashing of the order dated 30.11.1994 of the Prescribed Authority allowing the application of the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (for short the Act), on the ground of personal need. Further prayer has been made to quash the judgment and order dated 26.5.1996 of the District Judge, Jhansi affirming the judgment and order dated 30.11.1994 of the Prescribed Authority and dismissing the appeal.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the house in question on 28.11.1967 for a rental of Rs. 5/ - per month. On account of family partition, the disputed house came in the share of Respondent No. 3, Lakhan Lal, and he made a request to the tenant to vacate the house for his personal use and also to start a business for earning his livelihood, upon which the tenant conveyed that he would vacate the house after constructing its own house over the land purchased by him. Subsequently, it appears that after constructing his own house in the name of his wife, he shifted in it but he did not hand over the possession of the house in dispute and started running a vegetable shop in the said house just to maintain his possession. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 3/landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for the release of the house in question for his personal use and occupation, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.11.1994 and also affirmed by the appellate court.

(3.) MR . Vivek Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that Explanation (i) of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act is not applicable in the facts of the present case and, therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from the manifest error. In my view, the above submission is devoid of merits and cannot be accepted in the facts of the case in hand.