SAMBHOO NATH JAISWAL Vs. ARVIND KUMAR JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 12th Feb., 2000 by which the Prescribed Authority allowed the application that had been filed by the landlord under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute as the landlord bona fide required the same. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 9th Sept., 2004 by which the Appeal filed by the tenant under Sec. 22 of the Act for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed.

(2.) The aforesaid application had been filed by Shail Kumari widow of late Sundar Lal and Arvind Kumar son of late Sundar Lal under Sec. 21(1)(a) & (b) of the Act. During the pendency of the application Shail Kumari died and certain other developments had taken place as a result of which the aforesaid application was amended. A perusal of the amended application reveals that the opposite party Sambhoo Nath Jaiswal was a tenant of a portion of House no.439, Pili Kothi, Nai Basti, Kydganj, Allahabad; that the rented premises consists of two rooms and a latrine; that Shail Kumari had three sons Arvind Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Anand Kumar and by a registered will dated 12th Jan., 1987 she had bequeathed ⅔rd portion of the aforesaid house to her son Arvind Kumar and the remaining ⅓rd portion to her son Ashok Kumar; that Shail Kumari died on 14th May, 1995 and under the will the applicant No. 2 Arvind Kumar became the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute; that the applicant Arvind Kumar was residing at 426, Nai Basti, Kydganj, Allahabad and the accommodation consists of two rooms, courtyard, latrine on the ground floor and two rooms and latrine on the first floor; that the family of Arvind Kumar consists of himself, his wife, four daughters and two sons Veer Ratan Singh and Vikram Singh; that Veer Ratan Singh got married in 1990 and his family consists of his wife and one daughter; that Veer Ratan Singh with his family is also residing with the applicant; that the application had been filed by Shail Kumari (since deceased) and Arvind Kumar for the need of Arvind Kumar and grand son Veer Ratan Singh and after her death Arvind Kumar requires the accommodation in question for his personal need and occupation and also for the need and occupation of his family members; that the building requires demolition and reconstruction; that the family of the tenant consists of his wife and two sons Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal and Anil Kumar Jaiswal; that the daughter of the tenant is married and is living with her husband separately at Bombay; that during the pendency of the application Anil Kumar Jaiswal son of the tenant acquired house no.106/70, South Malaka, Allahabad and is living there; that the tenant has also purchased a plot no.26/13, Muir Road, Allahabad from Geetanjali Sahkari Samiti in the name of his son Anil Kumar Jaiswal and has built a palatial house; that the elder son of the tenant Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal also acquired house no.1399/800 in a vacant state at Dariyabad and is living there with his wife and children and that as the tenant and the members of his family who were normally residing with him had acquired houses in a vacant state in the same city, the objections filed by the tenant to the application filed by the landlord under Sec. 21 of the Act cannot be entertained in view of Explanation (i) contained in the fourth proviso to Sec. 21(1) of the Act. It was, therefore, prayed that the portion of house No. 141 Nai Basti, Kydganj Allahabad in occupation of the tenant be released in favour of the landlord.

(3.) The tenant filed a written statement inter alia stating that the house at 426, Nai Basti, Kydganj, Allahabad where Arvind Kumar is residing is a very big three storied house; that out of the four daughters of Arvind Kumar, two daughters are married and are residing with their in-laws and their need cannot be taken into consideration; that the tenanted premises was in perfectly good condition and therefore, the application filed under Sec. 21(1)(b) of the Act was misconceived; that the tenant has two sons and three daughters out of which two daughters were married and the tenant wants to perform the marriage of his two sons; that the tenant is likely to suffer greater hardship in case the release application is allowed; that his son Anil Kumar Jaiswal does not own house No. 106/70 South Malaka and nor does he reside there; that the tenant has not purchased Plot No. 26/13 Muir Road Allahabad in his name or in the name of his son Anil Kumar Jaiswal; that his son Anil Kumar Jaiswal has separate mess, business and residence and was neither normally residing with the tenant and nor was he dependent on the tenant; that his other son Ramesh Kumar has also a separate mess, business, residence and was not residing with the tenant and nor was he dependent on the tenant; that Ramesh Kumar has not acquired any house No. 139/800 Muir Road, Dariyabad at Allahabad.