RAJ KUMARI GUPTA Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was listed peremptorily yesterday. Sri J. J. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that it is landlord petition and release application was filed on 4.4.1994 and is pending. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondent. Since the case was listed peremptorily and counsel for the contesting respondent-tenant was not present, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to give a written notice to the counsel for the respondent and the case was directed to be put up tomorrow. Today an affidavit has been filed by Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav, clerk of Sri J. J. Munir advocate stating therein that he has tried to locate Sri Ravindra Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent in the Court and also searched for him on his seat but he was not available. In the evening, he had gone at his residence and gave notice to Mr. Mishra but he refused to take notice, he gave assurance that he will be present in the Court when the case is taken up. The said notice is annexed with the affidavit of Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav. Sri J. J. Munir also informed the Court that the rejoinder-affidavit was served to the counsel for the respondent but he refused to accept the same, therefore, he has not been able to file the said rejoinder-affidavit. However, I have taken the rejoinder-affidavit on record.

(2.) SRI J. J. Munir advanced his arguments on behalf of the petitioner Smt. Raj Kumari Gupta who is landlady of the property situated at Achal Road, Aligarh. The respondent is tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 110. The accommodation in question is situated on the ground floor of a building Bearing Premises No. 8/91E. The accommodation in question was let out to the tenant-respondent when the sons of the landlady were very small. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the number of family members including the landlady were 13, as detailed in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The disputed accommodation was bona fidely required by the landlady for her son Bhubanesh Kumar who was unemployed but married with two children. He passed his Intermediate Examination in the year 1990 and thereafter joined his studies in B. Com. However, he did not continue with his studies therefore, there was necessity for the landlady to establish her son in an independent business. It was also contended that the other son Devesh Kumar also intended to settle his business and requires accommodation.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the fact that an application for local inspection was moved which is Annexure-19 to the writ petition. The appellate court had directed that it will be decided at the stage of final hearing but neither it was taken into consideration nor any order was passed on the said application.