SHIV CHARAN Vs. IIND ADDL DISTT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Gupta, J. This is tenant's chal lenging the judgment and order dated 27-7-1994 passed by the then 2nd Additional District Judge, Meerut allowing the ap peal preferred by landlord- respondent against the judgment and order dated 18-2-1992 of the Prescribed Authority.

(2.) THE disputes relates to a portion of house No. 384 situated in Kabari Bazar, Teli Mohalla Sadar, Meerut which com prised of two small rooms measuring 4' x 8' each with common latrine and bathroom. THE said accommodation is in the ground floor and is admittedly in the tenancy of the petitioner since 1970. THE landlord-respondent moved an application under Scction21 (l) (a)of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') for the release of the accommodation in question on the ground that in order to cater the requirement of his family mem bers, he needed additional accommoda tion. In the application it was stated that his family consisted of his wife and two minor children. It was however, also stated that the father and mother of the landlord were also residing with him. During the pendency of application the landlord fur ther claimed that his grand- mother Smt. Parvati Devi has also started living with him and his requirement of additional ac commodation has further increased. THE landlord further alleged that since the tenant has built his own house on a piece of land purchased in the year 1986, he would suffer no hardship as he could shift there without any inconvenience. He also pleaded that the said house was situated in Mohalla Kasampur Nagala Karhi which is in Meerut Urban Agglomeration. In short the landlord's case was that on account of construction of house by the tenant, the Explanation 1 of 4th proviso of Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act was attracted, accord ingly the tenant could not be heard in opposition to the application of the landlord moved under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act.

(3.) THE appellate authority affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority regarding the applicability of Explanation 1 merely on the basis that the said finding of the Prescribed Authority has not been challenged by the tenant by way of appeal. THE lower appellate authority has how ever, reversed the finding of ihe Prescribed Authority on the question of bond fide need holding that the trial Court has not considered the requirement of the landlord's father, mother and grand mother who are proved to be living with the landlord, and if their need was taken into account, the claim of the landlord for additional accommodation was not ex hausted despite release of accommodation in his favour, which was hitherto in occupation of J. M. Ghosh. In other words, the lower Appellate Court came lo the conclusion that even after corning into occupation of the two rooms vacated by J. M. Ghosh the need of the landlord for additional accommodation did not stand satisfied and his need for accommodation in question was bona fide. With these find ings the release application of the landlord has been allowed by the impugned order which has been challenged in this writ petition before this Court by the tenant.