SHARDA DEVI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MIRZAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of District Judge dated 17-12-1987 allowing the ap peal and rejecting the release application riled by the landlord-petitioner.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) read with Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for the release of her house situate in Mohalla Badli Katra, Upadhyaya Ki Pokhri, Mir zapur. She purchased the house in ques tion on 3-12-1982 and respondent No. 3 is its tenant. She requires the house in ques tion for personal need as her husband and his elder brother Tara Chandra are resid ing as tenants in the house of Ram Narain Bania where she is in occupation of a single Kothri. THE house in question is in dilapidated condition and after the demolition and reconstruction she will oc cupy the same. Respondent No. 2 con tested the application and denied the ver sion of the petitioner. THE prescribed authority, after making local inspection and considering the material evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the need of the landlady was bona fide. THE house was in dilapidated condition and after demolition and reconstruction she will occupy the same for her residential purpose. THE application was allowed vide order dated 27-2-1987. Respondent No. 2 filed appeal against the said order. Respondent No. 1 has allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 17-12-1987 on the ground that even if this accommoda tion is permitted to be occupied it will not be sufficient to satisfy the need of the landlady and secondly the tenant will suf fer a greater hardship. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE view of respondent No. 1 is manifestly illegal. It has been found by the prescribed authority that the petitioner's husband is residing in Kothri in a tenanted occupation and the petitioner requires the accommodation for residential purposes. THE accommodation can be occupied in its existing form or after demolition and due construction. THE petitioner had categori cally stated that she will get the accom modation reconstructed. THE need has to be examined as to the requirement of the landlady to occupy the accommodation in question. Respondent No. 1 has further observed that respondent No. 2 has no alternative accommodation. THE mere fact that the tenant has no other accommoda tion is itself not a ground to reject the application of the landlady. THE need has to be compared keeping in view various facts. THE application for release was filed in the year 1986. THE Court has to examine every aspect of the matter while consider ing the hardship of the parties in the event of the application is allowed or rejected.