MOHAMMAD ILLIYAS Vs. SYED ALI NAWAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's writ against an order on the application of the landlord opposite party No. 1 under Section 21 of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972 passed by the Prescribed Authority which has been upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of the landlord's bonafide personal need. The disputed property consisted of a residential house No. 142. It appears that the landlord lives in an adjacent house No. 136. The landlord also has got one room of house No 142 in his occupation while the rest of the house No. 142 was under the petitioner's tenancy. The Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority have both held that accommodation in possession of the landlord was insufficient for his need and have also considered the com parative hardship likely to be caused to the parties as a result of allowing or rejecting the application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in arriving at their conclusion in favour of the landlord the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority have also taken into consideration the fact that a married daughter of the landlord also lives with him along with her son. It was contended on behalf of the landlord that the married daughter perforce lived with him on account of some difference with her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner is undoubtedly right in contending that the needs of the married daughter of the landlord could not as such be taken into consideration. She is not a member of the landlord's family as defined in the Act. It appears, however, that the decision in favour of the landlord has been arrived at by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority on a detailed and objective assessment of their respective needs. The portion in possession of the landlord in house No. 136 consists of only one room and one Kothri. The size of the room is 12' x 9' while that of the Kothri is 5' x 9'. The first floor of house No. 136 is in the occupa tion of the landlord's son who has his own family. It appears that the land lord's earlier applications under Section 3 of the old Act No. 3 of 1947 were rejected on the ground that the landlord was still in service. It has been stated in the judgments of the two authorities that the landlord was a member of the U. P. Educational Service and he retired on 1st July, 1974. Even though a married daughter may not have a right to live in the house of her father, one has to take into account the circumstances that a father has to make provision for periodical visits and in special circumstances even prolonged stay, of married daughters as well. Thus, the arguments that the married daughter's need should not be considered is merely-of a technical nature and it cannot affect the correctness of the over all assessment of needs of the landlord considered by the two authorities. The petitioner was carrying on the business in Barabanki while the accommodation is situated at Lucknow. His first wife, who used to live in this house has died and the second wife is also employed in Barabankin Thus, even if the consi deration of landlord's married daughter living with him is excluded, then also the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority cannot be characterised as illegal or perverse. It does not call for interference in exercise of writ petition of this Court. In the result the writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs. At the request of the petitioner's counsel the petitioner is allowed time till 31st May, 1979 to vacate the premises on condition that the entire rent and damages for use and occupation upto date are deposited in the Court of the Prescribed Authority within 15 days.