SANGEETA AGARWAL Vs. GYASI LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by her against original tenant-respondent-Gyasi Lal on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of case No. 129of 1984. Release application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. Appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter writ petition No. 13827 of 1987 was filed in this Court which was allowed on 3.4.2003 and matter was remanded to the lower appellate Court to decide the appeal again.

(2.) THE matter was remanded for considering the affidavit of Ram Prasad, father in law of the landlady-petitioner. Ram Prasad had filed affidavit before Prescribed Authority. However, lower Appellate Court had mentioned that he had not filed any affidavit. After remand the appeal was heard again and dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Jhansi through judgment and order dated 21.8.2003 and initial order of Prescribed Authority, Jhansi dated 19.9.1986 rejecting the release application was maintained.

(3.) COPY of the release application is Anneuxre-1 to the writ petition. According to the allegations made in the release application, in the shop towards north of the accommodation in dispute Ram Prasad father-in-law of the landlady was doing business of goldsmith and he had sub-let the accommodation in dispute to the respondent which was in the form of gallery for repairing the ornaments. In para-6 of the release application it was stated that the gallery was let out with the condition that tenant would do the job of repairing ornaments and family of Ram Prasad would also pass through the said gallery for ingress and outgress from the residential accommodation towards west of the accommodation in dispute and adjoining shop where Ram Prasad was doing the business. It was further stated that tenant was not permitting the landlady and her family members to pass through the said gallery hence they were passing through the shop situate towards north of the accommodation in dispute facing great difficulty. Both the Courts below recorded a finding of fact that from the accommodation in dispute landlady and her family members never passed through and the said gallery was never used as passage. This finding is basically a finding of fact. Even otherwise I do not find any error in the said finding. Accommodation having width of less than 4 feet cannot be used for dual purposes of repairing the ornaments and using it as passage. Moreover, the tenant must be keeping his tools and other items in the accommodation in dispute and he could not be supposed to leave that open even after working hours and during night time.