TAHIRA FATIMA Vs. IV ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. This is the landlady's Writ Petition against the order dated 5-8-1986 passed by Respondent No. 1 in appeal under Section 22 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short ). The Respondent No. 1 by the impugned order has allowed the appeal of the tenant and dismissed the application of the landlord.

(2.) IT is admitted case that initially the property in dispute belonged to one Sri Hamiduddin Ahmad. He gifted the property to his three daughters. The daughters subsequently partitioned the house into three portions. Kanpur Nagar Palika accepted this partition and separate numbers have been allotted to these parti tioned portions. According to the petitioner they are residing in a part of the building where the Respondent No. 2 is residing. IT is their further claim that in the partition the portion which has been given in the share of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is in occupation of the tenant - Respondent No. 2 and the petitioner are partly in the por tion of their share, but mostly they are occupying the share of the third sister Smt. Mehraj Wasi (third sister for short ). IT ;s further allegation of the petitioner that third sister has given them notice to vacate her portion which is occupied by them. IT is for this reason that they filed the applica tion for release of their share.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order petitioner have filed present Writ Petition. Both the Courts below have given finding that property was gifted to three sisters and the partition is amongst them, it has been held as valid, no objection can be taken thereto and the application of the petitioners can not be rejected on this ground. Once this finding has been given then admittedly petitioners are occupying the portion of the third sister. They were not the tenant of the third sister and were living merely as a licensee. The third sister wanted them to vacate the portion, which was given to her. Even if third sister's husband had gone to Bombay does not mean that petitioner's need to live in their portion is not bona fide. The need of the petitioner cannot be denied.