SHEELA SABHARWALS Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prakash Krishna, petitioner's counsel. Sri Vishnu Gupta and Sri K. M. Dayal, Senior Advocate appear for the caveator respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (landlords).

(2.) This is tenant's writ petition. The dispute relates to a portion of House No. 3. Baird Road (B. P. Jain Road). Allahabad which is in the tenancy of the petitioners since before the same was purchased by the present landlords. It is not disputed that the present release application by the landlords was filed against the petitioner after making compliance of the first proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Act by serving the required notice on the tenant. The landlords filed release application that they required the entire tenanted accommodation for their personal need as the accommodation already in their occupation was insufficient to cater their need who are a man of high status of society. The tenant-petitioners denied the said allegation of the landlords and asserted that the accommodation in their possession was sufficient to cater their need. The Prescribed Authority accepted the landlords' claim for additional accommodation. However, it came to the conclusion that the requirements of the landlords would sufficiently be met by releasing part of the tenanted accommodation lying to the South of the main building shown by letters S-1, S-2, S-3. S-7 and S-8 in the Commissioner's map. Aggrieved by the said order, both the landlords and tenant filed appeals before the lower appellate court. The appeal filed by the tenant has been dismissed while the one filed by the landlords has been allowed in part. As per the judgment of the lower appellate court, the portion shown in red colour by the letters S-1 to S-8 and S-16 as shown in the Commissioner's map has been allowed to be retained by the tenant-petitioners and the landlords were further directed to get constructed an additional latrine-cum-bathroom, which has been done by the respondents as per the statement given by the learned counsel for the caveator and it has not been disputed before me from the tenant's side. It may be mentioned here that the accommodation already left with the tenant consists of seven rooms, kitchen, bathroom, toilet, garrage, etc.

(3.) The concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below on the question of bona fide need has been challenged mainly on the ground that the requirement for additional accommodation was based on the allegation that it was not practicable for the members of families of landlord Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to live together and they needed separate messing and living and for (hat purpose, each of them required separate dining rooms, living rooms, kitchen, bathroom, etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended before Ihis Court that the Prescribed Authority recorded a specific finding that landlords failed to prove that the family members of landlord Nos. 1 to 3 were not having coordial relations and separate living was necessary ; yet the Courts below have held need for additional accommodation to be bona fide. It may be mentioned here that after recording the above finding, the Prescribed Authority weighed other facts and circumstances of the case and came to a positive finding that the requirement of the landlords for additional accommodation was bona fide. The tower appellate court has reversed the finding of the Prescribed Authority on the point of separate living and on the basis of evidence on record, has held that on account of growing ages of children of the three landlords and the strained relations between the wives of the said landlords, the need of the landlords for additional accommodation for their separate living was necessary. It has also been found as a fact that they are men of status and they needed additional accommodation to cater their need for a comfortable living. Every landlord of a building is entitled to a comfortable living and he cannot be compelled in law to cramp himself in an Inadequate and insufficient accommodation. The Courts below have examined the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also Rule 16 (1) (d) of the Rules framed under the Act and the lower appellate court has thus allowed the tenant to retain the above-mentioned portion which cannot be said to be insufficient or Inadequate to meet out the need of the tenant and his family members. In this case, tenant has not been ordered to be thrown on streets and he has been allowed to retain still a portion of the tenanted accommodation which in the opinion of the Courts below was sufficient to cater his need having regard to his family members. As already pointed out above, the said portion comprises of seven rooms besides kitchen, bathroom, toilets, garrage, etc.