BHARAT BHUSHAN Vs. ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner tenant challenging the order passed by Prescribed Authority in PA Case No. 15 of 2011 (Anoop Kumar Gupta Vs. Bharat Bhushan and another) dated 19.11.2016 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 2016 (Bharat Bhushan Vs. Anoop Kumar Gupta and another) on 31.03.2018.

(2.) The facts mentioned by the petitioner-tenant in his writ petition are to the effect that the respondents No. 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of late Shri Chandan Swaroop Gupta, resident of 77-C, Naee Mandi, Muzaffarnagar and the respondent No. 1 was an Assistant Engineer in the Department of Public Works and respondent No. 2 was a Doctor retired from a Government Hospital. The respondent No. 2 allegedly left his share in the property in question i.e. House No. 77-C, Naee Mandi, Muzaffarnagar in favour of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a Release Application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafterto referred as "the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972") alleging that he was about to retire from PWD and needed the house for his own living as it was his ancestral property and his son was going to get married soon. He wished to see the marriage of his son from the ancestral house. It was also stated that the part of ground-floor of House No. 77-C, Naee Mandi, Muzaffarnagar was occupied by the petitioner-tenant, while the rest of the house was occupied by another tenant Pramod Kumar. The petitioner-tenant had originally taken the house on rent from his father @ Rs. 60/- per month and was currently paying Rs. 1,000/- per month which he had not paid since 2009. A legal notice was issued to him under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for payment of arrears of rent and termination of tenancy. However, the petitioner-tenant did not pay any heed to the said notice.

(3.) In the Release Application the case set up by the respondent-landlord was that since he was going to retire and he had no other house in Muzaffarnagar to live in, he had a genuine and pressing need for eviction of the tenant from the property in question.