AHMADI BEGUM Vs. MOHD. ANEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Saksena, learned counsel for the petitioners- tenants and Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents- landlords.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly Mohd. Yusuf was the original owner and landlord of House No.96/26 A -1, Colonelganj, District - Kanpur Nagar. He had let out one room, Kothari, Kitchen, latrine, bath room and a verandah to the original tenant - Zaheer Uddin. The landlords-respondents are the successors of the aforesaid Mohd Yusuf. The petitioners-tenants succeeded the tenancy after the death of original tenant - Zaheer Uddin. Subsequently, the petitioners-tenants, without permission of the respondents-landlords; made some structural changes in the tenanted premises by constructing additional rooms. The respondents-landlords filed a Rent Case No.51 of 2001 (Mohd. Anees and others Vs. Smt. Ahmadi Begum and others) under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for release of the tenanted portion on the ground of bonafide need. At the time of filing of the aforesaid release application total number of family members of the respondents-landlords were 26 and they were having a very small accommodation in their possession for their residence in the disputed house. The petitioners-tenants were tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.25.00. Before the Prescribed Authority evidences were also led to the effect that the petitioners-tenants during pendency of the release application, purchased a House No.217 from Awas Vikas on 8/2/2008 but subsequently sold it on 7/10/2010. The aforesaid release application was allowed by judgment and decree dtd. 31/5/2013 in Rent Case No.51 of 2001, passed by the A.C.M.M., Court No.5, Kanpur Nagar. Aggrieved with this judgment the petitioners-tenants filed a Rent Appeal No.25 of 2014 (Smt. Ahmadi Begum Vs. Mohd. Anees and others) which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dtd. 19/12/2018, passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Kanpur Nagar. Aggrieved with these judgment the petitioners-tenants have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants submits that before the Appellate Court evidences were brought on record that one of the respondents-landlords Mohd. Anees had built certain flats in another locality and sold it. This conduct of the respondents-landlords shows that they are not in bonafide need of the disputed accommodation. No other point has been argued before me by learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants.