9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om, one toilet and kitchen since the year 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. The landlady filed release application No. 18 of 2001 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [for short `the Act'] for the need of her sons, daughters-in-law and grandchildren. In the release application, respondent-landlady stated that her husband Shri Chaman Lal Kathuria, before his death, was carrying on kiryana business in small portion of the premises. She stated that she has a large family to support comprising herself, two married sons and their children and one daughter and her children. According to the landlady, she urgently needed additional accommodation to provide proper and comfortable living rooms, kitchens and bathrooms for her children who are facing tremendous inconvenience and hardships on account of shortage of accommodation. The release application was contested by the appellant- tenant by filing written statement and denying the claim of the landlady. He, inter alia, took the stand that the claim of the landlady was not bona fide and genuine and the release application has been moved with the mal-intention of hara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted manifest error of law and jurisdiction in entertaining and allowing second application for release of the demised premises as her first application for the same relief was already allowed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.4 of 1983 and two release orders in respect of the same accommodation, one conditional and other blanket, cannot co-exist and that being the position, the impugned orders are vitiated in law. He next contended that the second application for the release of the demised premises filed by the landlady was an abuse of process of law and the courts below should not have entertained the second release application of the landlady to perpetrate a fraud in judicial proceedings to achieve her nefarious designs. It was also contended that the landlady before her death had possessed 11 cozy rooms with other allied accommodation for the need of her 5 adults and 4 minor members of the family, which are quite sufficient for their peaceful living, but while determining the bona fide need of the landlady the courts below have ignored the comparative hardship of the appellant-tenant. Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta-II, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-legal r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r elder son, Satish Kathuria, his educated wife Smt. Namita and her grandsons Abhishek, Rajat and grand- daughter Karishma and younger son Joginder Kathuria, his educated wife Smt. Rajani, grand-daughter Tanu; her married daughter Smt. Neelam Khanna, son-in-law Manish Khanna and their daughters Kum. Kirti and Kum. Neha. She filed affidavit in support of her release application stating inter alia that her elder son is a Contractor/Builder, and he needs separate room for his educated wife and children who are studying in convent school; she needed room for her second son Joginder Kathuria, an Advocate and his educated wife and daughter and separate accommodation for her married daughter, son-in-law and their children who have frequently been paying visits to her house because of her old age. She also stated that she needed one room for her old lady friends, one room for prayer purpose and one room to be used as a Museum to preserve some articles of her late husband. She stated that the appellant-tenant took the demised premises on rent in July 1972 with clear understanding that being a member of Indian Air Force, he would be transferred from his place of posting within a period of 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He stated that in the past over several years, the landlady had evicted many tenants and thereafter she let out the accommodations to other persons during the pendency of the present eviction application. Looking to the strength of the family members of the landlady and accommodation available with them, the landlady did not need any additional accommodation as per the version of the appellant-tenant. He stated that he is living in the demised premises with his wife, son Rajiv and his wife Gayatri, grandson Nikhil and his second son Vijay and his wife Rinku, whereas his third son Ajay Juneja is living in a separate house No.124A/272, Block 11, Govind Nagar, Kanpur, which was owned by Ajay's grandfather late Shri Sant Ram Juneja. He stated that he has no other accommodation in the city of Kanpur. He denied the allegation of sub-letting the rented accommodation to one R.N. Singh at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and stated that the landlady got false suit instituted against him through R.N. Singh. He submitted that as the landlady refused to accept the rent he, therefore, has been regularly depositing the settled rent under Section 30(1) of the Act in the Court of Civil Judge, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d concurrent findings of facts that the appellant-tenant and his family members have got separate accommodation in Kanpur City and on the basis of the evidence on record, the requirement of the accommodation of the landlady is bona fide and genuine and the comparative hardship also is more pressing to the landlady in comparison to the appellant-tenant. In that view of the matter, the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant-tenant on the premises of concurrent findings of facts. In the backdrop of the facts, indisputably, the landlady could file an application before the prescribed authority for the eviction of the appellant-tenant from the premises under tenancy or any specified portion thereof and the prescribed authority after satisfying itself that the ground as stipulated in Section 21 of the Act does exist, the eviction order has been validly passed against the appellant-tenant. Rule 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, prescribes certain factors which have also to be taken into account by the prescribed authority while considering the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
