MUKHTAR BEGUM Vs. ABDUL GAFFAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions by Mukhtar Begum are directed against three judgments all dated 4.12.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.16, Kanpur Nagar in separate rent appeals filed by the respondent-tenants under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act'). Thereby, the appeals have been allowed and three separate judgments of Prescribed Authority dated 7.3.2011 have been set aside. The building involved in all three cases is same bearing no.105/209-A Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar. The respondents are tenants of different portions of the said building (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed building'). In Rent Case No.50 of 2006 Abdul Gaffar respondent is tenant of ground floor comprising of four rooms, one store, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and courtyard (giving rise to Writ-A No.14826 of 2014). In Rent Case No.73 of 2004, Smt. Shakeela Begum-respondent no.1 is tenant of two rooms, kothari, verandah, courtyard, latrine and bathroom on the first floor (giving rise to Writ-A No.14822 of 2014). In Rent Case No.74 of 2004, the respondent Mohd. Shakeel is tenant of a kothari on ground floor (giving rise to Writ-A No.14823 of 2014). In Writ -A No.14823 of 2014, despite service of summons on respondent being held sufficient by order dated 12.1.2015, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent-tenant, whereas in other petitions, the tenants are duly represented.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Atul Dayal assisted by Sri Manish Tandon, Sri Gulrez Khan on behalf of tenant in Writ-A No.14826 of 2014 and Sri J.P. Singh on behalf of tenant in Writ-A No.14822 of 2014. With their consent, all the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Writ-A No.14826 of 2014 is treated to be leading case and the facts narrated in the body of the judgment are in context of the pleadings made in the said case.

(3.) The release application was filed by the petitioner-landlady registered as Rent Case No.50 of 2006 alleging that her family comprises of self, her husband Fareed Ahmad, four sons Jiya Alam, Fakhrey Alam, Shah Alam and Mansoor Alam and daughter Km. Farkhanda Anjum. They are living in a tenanted accommodation bearing building no.105/176, Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar comprising of one room, varandah, court yard, latrine and bathroom. She also has two married daughters Smt. Kahkashan Anjum and Darankhasan Anjum. Her another daughter Smt. Rakshhanda Anjum had died leaving behind a son Mohd. Jaid Siddiqui. The residential accommodation in the tenanted premises is wholly insufficient to meet the need of residence of such a large family. She is unable to perform marriage of her sons because of paucity of residential accommodation. Her two sons Jiya Alam and Fakhrey Alam are building contractors, whereas Shah Alam and Mansoor Alam are engaged in business of silk yarn. The married daughters of the applicant and other relatives visit her during festivals and other occasions. The applicant thus requires at least five rooms, one for herself and her husband and one each for her four sons, a guest room, a drawing room, atleast two store rooms, latrine, bathroom and kitchen. She has purchased a part of house no.11/32 Gwal Toli, Kanpur Nagar measuring 85 sq. yards by registered sale deed dated 25.6.2003, in which there is only one khaparail shed room which too is in damaged condition. Another part of the same house was purchased by her daughter Km. Farkhanda Anjum by sale deed dated 25.11.2003 measuring 35 sq. yards, having only one room which is occupied by tenant Nizam Khan. The son of the applicant Fakre Alam had purchased another part of the same house measuring 59 sq. yards by two sale deeds dated 25.11.2003 comprising of two rooms, which are occupied by tenants Sulochan Singh and Chhanga Devi. As such, no part of the said house is available in vacant state to the applicant. By means of an amendment, a plea was also introduced in the release application to the effect that the applicant had executed a Hiba of the portion of house no.11/32 Gwal Toli, Kanpur Nagar owned by her in favour of her son-in-law Haseeb Ahmad on 15.3.2006 and thus, ceased to be owner of the said house. The disputed premises is most suited to the need of the applicant and her family, therefore, it be released in her favour.