RAJ BAHADUR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord s petition questioning the validity of order dated 06.02.1996 passed by District Judge, Allahabad , allowing appeal preferred under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

(2.) Brief background of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that the landlord filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for release of the tenanted accommodation in occupation of Banke Lal on the ground that his mother, who was aged about 70 years, was not in a position to climb the upstairs; the visitors, who include the relatives and friends cannot be properly entertained in the house on account of paucity of accommodation; the family of landlord comprised of seven members, namely, landlord himself, his wife, mother, two sons and two daughters, and it was difficult to accommodate them on the first floor of the house and the house was in dilapidated condition, which required demolition and reconstruction. The accommodation in possession of landlord consisted of two rooms in the form of kotharies and a room inside the kothari besides open roof on the first floor and a room on the ground floor, which was being used for the purposes of stocking goods required by the landlord in connection with his trade and business. Said release application was opposed by the tenant by filing written statement, denying that need set up by landlord was not at all bona fide and genuine one. Evidence was led from both the sides. The Prescribed Authority considered the need of the landlord to be bona fide and genuine one and on comparative hardship front proceeded to allow the release application on 10.09.1985. Aggrieved against the said order, Rent Control Appeal No. 462 of 1985 had been filed. During pendency of appeal, various orders were passed against which, three writ petitions were filed, being writ petition Nos. 9421 of 1990, 22489 of 1990 and 23555 of 1990. All writ petitions were disposed of on 11.11.1994, with a direction for issuance of commission. Thereafter, commission was issued. The said appeal has been allowed on 06.02.1996. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been stated that the lower appellate court after considering the evidence on record came to the rightful conclusion that the room which was in occupation of the tenant was not at all required by the landlord. It has also been sought to be suggested that the premises in question was not at all being used. It has also been stated that new house has been purchased and he is staying therein. It has also been stated that at present moment, there is no water connection, no electricity connection and no telephone connection, as such in view of all these subsequent developments premises in question is not at all required.