CHANDRAWATI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE PAURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings for release of the accommodation in dispute. The property in dispute is situate on Station Road, Kotdwara, Garhwal. It consists of two separate accommodations. One accommodation is in the tenancy of opposite party No. 3 and the other in the tenancy of opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5. The Petitioner is the landlady.

(2.) THE Petitioner landlady moved an application under Section 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 on 26 -6 -1971 for permission to eject the tenants. During the pendency of this application U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U.P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force and the U.P. Act III of 1947 was repealed. The application moved by the Petitioner under Section 3 of U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, was continued by the Petitioner under the provisions of the new Act.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has challenged both the findings recorded by the appellate court. His contention in regard to the first finding is that the application for release was both under Section 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of the Act. The appellate court while considering the bonafide need under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act has not considered the need in the light of the fact that the Petitioner requires the building after demolition and new construction, for the purposes of augmenting her income. It is further stated that the husband of the Petitioner had died even before the order passed by the i Prescribed Authority, while the appellate court has rejected the need of the Petitioner on the ground that the husband Amar Singh being a man of considerable property can easily make arrangement for the maintenance of the Petitioner and her children. This is wholly irrelevant circumstance as the husband was already dead.