MEENA SRIVASTAVA Vs. RAM KISHORE TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Shukla for the contesting respondent. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 22.7.2008 and 31.3.2009 by which both the courts below have allowed the release application of the respondent-landlord. The respondent-landlord filed an application under section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in- after referred to as the Act) for release of the disputed accommodation wherein the petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs.25/- per month and was occupying four rooms, kitchen, toilet etc. It was pleaded that the house was about 120 years old and in a dilapidated condition. It was further pleaded that the family of the landlord consisted of eight persons out of which five are school going children and they needed at least ten rooms for comfortable living but they were possessed of only one room, two Kothri and a Varandah and the same was also in a dilapidated condition. It was further pleaded that the tenant was a teacher in Unnao and she can live comfortably in any other house and that she can purchase a house. The petitioner-tenant contested the suit with the allegation that the house was not in a dilapidated condition and the landlord was seeking to evict her only to let out the house on higher rent and the map prepared for the construction etc. are illegal and in case she is evicted, she will suffer greater hardship. After the parties had led their evidence, the application has been allowed by both the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the finding of the courts below on both issues of bonafide and comparative hardship are perverse. A perusal of the record shows that the courts below have taken all the evidence on record and after discussion, has recorded finding on the basis of the fact which does not appear to be either perverse or against the evidence on record. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the order is perverse in any manner and accordingly, the argument cannot been accepted. Lastly, it is urged that during the proceeding, house no. 247-C situated in Shyamnagar, which belonged to the landlord, has been vacated and therefore, the need of the landlord stood satisfied. This aspect has been considered by both the courts below where it was found that the tenant has vacated the premises because it was in a highly dilapidated condition and an offer was also made by the landlord that the petitioner can shift to that premises but she did not agree because she knew that the house was in a dilapidated condition and in fact, had fallen down at several places. Thus, this argument cannot be accepted. The findings of the courts below are based on evidence on record and cannot be re- appreciated No other point has been urged. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. However, in case the petitioner gives an undertaking within three weeks from today before the trial court that he would vacate the premises and handover peaceful possession to the landlord within three months from today, his eviction shall remain stayed for three months from today. The petitioner shall also deposit the entire rent and mesne profit etc. within three weeks from today. In case of failure to comply with any of the conditions, the order shall automatically stand discharged.