ISHWAR DEEN Vs. SMT. PRABHA AWASTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the tenant petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 19.11.2016 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the learned Appellate Court, Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Kanpur Nagar.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the landlady has resorted to concealment of material facts, and therefore, her application under section 21(1) (a) of the U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the premises in question on ground of bona fide need ought not to be considered. He has referred to Rule 16(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, wherein it has been provided that in considering the requirement of personal occupation for the purpose of residence by the landlady or any member of the family, the Prescribed Authority shall also have regard to such factors as are given under the various sub clauses of the Rules. Clause (a) of Sub Rule (1) specifically states that if the landlord already has adequate and reasonably suitable accommodation having regard to the number of members of his family and their respective ages and his means and social status, his claim for additional requirement shall be construed strictly.

(3.) Learned counsel for the tenant has stated that the landlady while issuing notice to the tenant to vacate the premises in question had mentioned that the tenant had in his possession two rooms and one veranda on the first floor along with one bathroom, one kitchen and toilet, whereas in the plaint in question, she has referred to three rooms and one veranda, therefore, she has resorted to concealment and misrepresentation.