SHY AM LAL Vs. RAJ KRISHNA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE tenant has filed this petition for setting aside the judgment and order dated 7th September, 2002 by which the application filed by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') for eviction of the tenant from the premises as the landlord bona fide required the building was allowed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 9th April, 2004 by which the Appeal filed by the petitioner under section 22 of the Act for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed.

(2.) THE application had been filed by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act with the allegations that the landlord had purchased the tenanted premises from Sitaram Gupta through the sale deed dated 26th July, 1985; that the applicant was married and had two sons; that he had no house of his own, except the premises in dispute, where he could reside with his family inde pendently; that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 namely Chunni Lal and Radhey Shyam had in fact shifted to Mohalla Vasliganj and Bhainsaiya Tola and had unnecessarily locked certain portion of the tenanted premises; that the landlord had been asking the tenant to vacate the premises in dispute as he bona fide required the premises but the tenant did not vacate the premises as a result of which notice was sent by Registered Post to the tenant.

(3.) A written statement was filed by Chunni Lal opposite party No. 2 pointing out that the applicant and his family had at least seven other houses in the same city; that the applicant did not require the tenanted premises at all; that he had already shifted from the tenanted premises and was residing elsewhere and so had been unnecessarily impleaded as a opposite party. Opposite party Nos. 1, 4 and 5 namely Shyam Lal, Rajesh Kumar and Basant Lal also filed a common written statement mentioning therein that the application filed by the landlord was not maintainable in view of the registered lease deed dated 15th November, 1977 executed by the erstwhile owner Sitaram Gupta; that the father of the applicant Bal Krishna jointly resided with his three brothers and the applicant and his brother were members of a joint family but for saving income tax, twelve houses were purchased in the name of different persons; that the applicant had no dearth of houses for residence and he did not require the tenanted premises at all and that rent had been paid to the applicant up to 30 th April, 1992 after which he stopped accepting the rent which was thereafter deposited under section 30 (1) of the Act. Opposite party No. 3 also filed a separate written statement.