VIDYA SINHA Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226, Constitution of India, arises out of proceedings initiated by Shyam Shankar Srivastava and his two sons by filing release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (for short called the 'Act') before prescribed authority appointed under the Act. The Landlord claimed that he required premises No. S/6/12. Mohalla Miana Mohal, Orderly Bazar. Varanasi, wherein Smt. Vidya Sinha (petitioner) was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 35 per month. Release was also sought for other portion in the said premises in the tenancy of Smt. Madhuri Singh. After parties led evidence, the prescribed authority urde judgment and order dated 10th May, 1995 (Annexure-5 to the petition) allowed release application granting two months to the tenant (petitioner) to vacate said accommodation and hand over vacant possession to the landlord. During the pendency of the proceedings before prescribed authority, Smt. Madhuri Singh, aforementioned had given possession to the landlord.

(2.) Smt. Vidya Sinha, thereafter filed Rent Control Appeal No. 157 of 1995, under Section 22 of the Act. The said appeal has also been dismissed by the appellate authority (respondent No. 1) vide judgment and order dated 28th May, 1999 (Annexure-6 to the petition). The Lower Appellate Court affirmed the Judgment of the prescribed authority, who had, after perusing the evidence and material on record on the question of bona fide need, found that the requirement of the Landlord was genuine and bona fide. In view of the fact that AJay Shankar Srivastava, son of the Landlord, was married and unemployed and that other son ManoJ Shanker Srivastava, who had passed M.Sc. in First Division was entitled to carry on proposed business according to his liking and he could not be compelled to remain in service as Class III employees, which was not according to the status of his family, i.e., his father was Principal of Degree College and grand-father was a renowned Advocate of District Ghazipur. The prescribed authority has also noted that the release application remained pending for 12 years and during which the situation was bound to change. The prescribed authority has also found that tenant had made no effort whatsoever for obtaining alternative accommodation. In view of it, prescribed authority held hardship which was going to be caused to the Landlord by rejecting release application will be more than that which will be suffered by the tenant in case of release being allowed. The Lower Appellate Court considered the evidence and material on record Independently and concurred with the findings recorded by prescribed authority. The tenant has, thus, come up before this Court by filing present petition.

(3.) I have heard Sr. T. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rohit Agrawal, holding brief of Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for Caveator-Respondent No. 3. The present writ petition is being heard at admission stage and finally decided.