PRAPHULLA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. INDRA DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri P. K. Jain counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Shri S. N. Gupta counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE landlord filed release application on 4.10.1995, under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short referred to as the Act) in respect of House No. 271 Chaukey Gate Firozabad, which was let out to the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs. 15. THE release application was contested by the tenant. THE written statement was filed on 23.2.1998, THE objection of the tenant petitioner is that the accommodation in question was not required bona fidely as the release was sought to sell the accommodation in question. However, on perusal of the release application, it transpires that the applicant No. 1 who is legal practitioner, is living in rented accommodation at Kanpur and the applicant No. 2 is an employee of Indian Railways (Northern Eastern Railways) and working as Chief Draftsman in the office of Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur. THE applicant No. 3 is serving in a Post Graduate College as a head of Psychology Department at Orai district Jalaun, and the applicant No. 4 is serving in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Konch district Jalaun. THE residential accommodation at Gorakhpur being premises No. 676-K Dairy Colony Gorakhpur, was occupied by the landlord by virtue of his employment in North Eastern Railways and his retirement was due at the time of institution of release application in the year 1995 and, therefore, the accommodation in dispute was required for his own residence as he has no other residential accommodation after his retirement and he will not be able to pay prevalent exhorbitant rate of rent. THE release application was hotly contested by the tenant and was rejected by the prescribed authority on the finding that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and in fact the landlord was trying to sell the disputed property. THE affidavits of Vishnu Chand Digharra and Thakur Lokendra Singh were filed in support of this contention. THE release application was rejected by the prescribed authority vide order dated 20.3,2001, which was challenged in rent appeal which stood allowed vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2004 by the appellate authority. This judgment is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

(3.) IN the case of Badri Narain Chunni Lal Bhulade v. Govind Ram Ram Gopal Mundada, AIR 2003 SC 2713 it has been held that failure of the tenant to search alternative accommodation after institution of the release application is sufficient to decide the question of comparative hardship against the tenant.