MADAN PAL SINGH Vs. PUSHPA LATA PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 20-11-1995 passed by the prescribed Authority-respondent No. 8 and the order dated 21-2-1998 passed by the lower appellate authority-respondent No. 9.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the dispute relates to a house situated in Mohalla Nagran, district Budaun, which was under the tenancy of the father of the petitioner since before the time it was purchased by late Sri Bhagwat Dayal Pandey through a registered sale deed dated 4-7-1977. It is alleged that even prior to the purchase of the house in question Late Bhagwat Dayal Pandey had conveyed his intention to the petitioners father that he required the house in question for himself and the tenant had agreed for vacating the same within 4-5 months but when the tenant did not vacate, Sri Bhagwat Dayal Pandey served him with a notice informing him that the house in question has been purchased by him for his own use and asked the tenant to vacate the same. Instead of complying with the notice, the tenant gave a wrong reply. Since Sri Bhagwat Dayal Pandey required the house in question for himself and for the members of his family he filed an application under S. 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. During the pendency of the said application Bhagwat Dayal Pandey expired. Substitution application was moved by Sri Surendra Kumar Pandey his son, but the same was rejected and application for release was dismissed. Thereafter Sri Surendra Kumar Pandey moved a fresh application under S. 21(1)(a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority giving rise to the present writ petition. It was registered as Case No. 22/1986 wherein it was alleged that the landlord-applicant was living in a small rented house at Budaun. His wife and children were living at Sahaswan and since the accommodation at Budaun was very small, he was unable to shift his entire family from Budaun to Sahaswan. One of his sons was studying in Budaun while other members were still forced to lvie at Sahaswan. The landlord was working as a Clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar, Budaun and on account of a meagre salary he was unable to maintain two establishments; one at Budaun and other at Sahaswan. Tenant was requested several times for vacating the house in question but he refused to do so and was demanding illegal 'Pagari'. The landlord was facing a great hardship on account of non-availability of house in question. He had to go to Sahaswan in the evening frequently to maintain his family there and to return next morning to join his office at Budaun. He had suffered heart attack also and the doctors advised him rest, therefore, it was not advisable for the landlord to undertake journeys for going from Budaun to Sahaswan to look after his family staying there. It was further alleged that the tenant had taken the house in question on rent when he was posted here. He has now retired and since he belonged to Meerut, he had no charm to continue his living at Budaun because he has his farming and cultivation and other property at Meerut. He used to remain out of Budaun most of the time and was in no need of the house in question. The landlord has no other accommodation except the house in question in whole of Uttar Pradesh.

(3.) During the pendency of aplication, Surendra Kumar Pandey also died and his legal heirs respondents Nos. 1 to 7 were brought on record. Application for release was also got amended and it was alleged that the said respondents are in dire need of the house in question and they have no other house except the house in question.The members of the family of the deceased-landlord are still forced to continue their living in the returned house at Sahaswan. The member have no charm to live at Sahaswan after the death of Surendra Kumar Pandey as they have no other relatives at Sahaswan. It had become practically impossible for them to live in the rented house at Sahaswan. They all wanted to settle at Budaun in the house in question but on account of refusal of tenant-petitioner to vacate the house, they were being forced unnecessarily to pay rent of the house at Sahaswan. It was further alleged that applicant No. 2, the widow of the deceased-landlord did not feel secured at Sahaswan along with her grown up daughters and that too in a locality which was mostly populated by the community of other religion. The landlord of that house was also putting pressure on them to vacate the rented house at Sahaswan.