RAM DAS GUPTA Vs. NAEEM ULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's petition. The dispute relates to a house situate in Mohalla Laxmipura in the city of Lalitpur. The landlord-petitioner moved an application purporting to be under Section 21 (1A) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (briefly, the Act) against Naeem Ullah tenant since deceased whose legal representatives have been brought on record as respondent Nos. 1/2 to 1/8. Through that application, the landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that he was in service of Indian Railways and was occupying Government occupation which he had to vacate on account of his retirement. He has no other house for his residence in the city of Lalitpur. His family consisted of self, two major song and five daughters, three married and two unmarried. It was further pleaded that while in service, he obtained law degree and after his retirement, he has decided to enter into profession as a lawyer and for that purpose in addition to his residential need, he requires a chamber for attending his clients at his residence. It was also stated that the petitioner's father before his death had taken on rent house No. 2, Chhatrashal Pura from where he was doing business of timber. The said accommodation was being used only for commercial purposes and is not a residential one. It was further alleged that in the disputed house there lies an open land having an area of about 2.200 Sq. ft, over which he would add construction to the existing tenanted building.

(2.) The tenant contested the said application, inter alia, pleading that he-was a tenant in the house of petitioner as well as of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He denied allegation of the petitioner about his genuine and bona fide need of the house in dispute for his residence or the profession of Vakalat. It was also pleaded that Nand Kishore Gupta, father of the petitioner landlord was residing in house No. 2, Chhatrashal Pura along with his family members for more than 50 years and during his life time his son, the petitioner, his wife, daughters and also the wife and children of the petitioner, who were about thirteen in number, were residing in the said house and after the death of his father and mother and marriages of sisters as well as three daughters of the petitioner, there were left only five members in the family and the accommodation available in the said house of Chhatrashal Pura was sufficient to cater the need of the landlord and his family members as also for carrying on the profession of Vakalat from that house. It was also claimed by him that house No. 2 of Chhatrashal Pura was a double storey house having a number of rooms and a Baithak. The house was situate in the main market in Lalitpur and was very suitable for the petitioner. The house belongs to the trust of Dhanushdhari Ji and, therefore, the petitioner was not likely to be evicted from it and he was having that house at a very nominal rent of Rs. 2 or Rs. 2.50 per month. The tenant further placed his hardship and stated that in case he was evicted he would be thrown on the street.

(3.) By the order dated 17.9.1987, the Prescribed Authority allowed the landlord's application in part by releasing two big eastern rooms facing open land and further directed the tenant to vacate and deliver their possession to the petitioner within a month of the order. The application for remaining two small rooms in the house in question was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, both the landlord and the tenant preferred appeals before the respondent No. 3. Both the appeals have been decided by a common judgment dated 30.9.88. The appeal filed by the landlord-petitioner has been dismissed while that of the tenant has been allowed in part and the judgment of the Prescribed Authority has been modified to the extent that only one room stands released in favour of the landlord for establishing his chamber therein to carry on his profession of Vakalat. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the tenant filed Writ Petition No. 21802 of 1988. That writ petition was dismissed by the order of this Court dated 4.9.96 for not taking steps for bringing legal representatives of the deceased tenant on record.