S N SETH Vs. PRAKASHWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order of the 9th Additional District Judge, Kanpur (Nagar) dated 21-4-1990.

(2.) The short and admitted facts giving rise to the present writ petition is that the landlady-respondent No. 1 moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under S. 16 of the J. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) for release of premises No. 10/429 Kahalai Lines, Kanpur in her favour on the ground, inter alia, that Dr. T. N. Seth, who was the tenant has migrated permanently to America and has substantially removed his effects and indicated his brother, S. N. Seth, who has no tenancy right, his possession there of is illegal and unauthorised and, therefore, the accommodation in question is deemed vacant under S. 12 of the Act, and the same is bona fidely required for occupation by herself and her family members for residential purpose, as they were living in a portion of premises No. 113/119, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur on rent and the landlord has filed Rent Case No. 31 of 1985 before the Prescribed Authority for their eviction under S. 21(1)(a) of the Act.

(3.) The petitioner opposed the prayer by filing objection stating that Dr. T. N. Seth was the Karta of Joint Hindu Family and has been in America since March, 1976, in connection with his job and since then the petitioner being member of the Joint Hindu Family is paying rent to erstwhile landlord regularly. However, when the petitioner learnt that the house has been purchased by respondent No. 1, he tendered the rent for the month of July and August, 1986 which she refused to accept. Hence, he deposited the rental in terms of S. 30(1) of the Act after taking permission from the Rent Control Authority and since then has been regularly depositing the rent. It has also been asserted in the objection that since the petitioner is residing in the accommodation in question with the consent of the landlord prior to July, 1976, therefore, his tenancy stood regularised in terms of the provisions contained in S. 14 of the Act.