KANTI DEVI Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are legal representatives of Sumer Mal Kothari, deceased, who was tenant in a portion of the house in mohalla Gazipura, 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, Bahraich by which both the authorities under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) have allowed the application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Janki Devi, owner/landlady of the portion of the house in occupation of tenant Sumer Mal filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for ejectment of Sumer Mal, tenant, on the ground of bona fide requirement for her own occupation and for the purposes of extension of the business being run by her grandson. The landlady claimed that she along with her widowed daughter, her son along with wife and children are residing in the upper portion of the house and her family consists of seven persons and is dependent upon the business of her grandson 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 platform to place upon few household articles for sale. She wants to extend her business and wants to install 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 subsequently changed to "Sarika Lodge" where he can shift his tent house business. Besides, the tenant is carrying on business near Onkar 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.) LEARNED Prescribed Authority (Munsif, Bahraich) considered the case of the parties and the evidence and came to the conclusion that the landlady is aged widow, besides her widowed daughter and her family are residing with her and looking after her needs and Ravi Prakash Goel being the son of her widowed daughter is living and supporting the entire family. It was held that Ravi Prakash was selling goods etc. outside the house on a wooden platform and income is not sufficient for the survival of the entire family and the landlady intends to extend her business by installing a flour mill along with rice and pulses thrashing machines to augment her source of income. It was also found that the tenant-respondent has sufficient accommodation with him, e.g., Sarika Lodge which although is ostensibly let out to his own sons on payment of rent. However, they were living with the tenant and he is supporting them because, according to the tenant himself, their business is not having any profit. Besides, there was no evidence if the rooms in the Sarika Lodge were not sufficiently big to accommodate the business of tent house. The Prescribed Authority also considered the comparative hardship and came to the conclusion that the landlady was in dire need of the accommodation which is bona fide one and the tenant has alternative accommodation to shift and continue his business. Application for eviction of the tenant was thus allowed.