Important Point
Need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of application for release and landlord is the best judge of his requirement.

Judgment

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. —

1.This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-tenant. Challenge in the writ petition was to the Order passed by the prescribed authority as affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar (Appellate Authority) allowing the release application of Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria respondent-landlady.

2.Facts, in brief, leading to the origin of this case, are as under:-

Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria, respondent-landlady was the owner of house No. 251 Ghaoo Khera Post, Chakeri, Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur. The appellant herein is the tenant on the ground floor of the demised premises consisting of one room with doo-chatti (store), courtyard, one bathroom, 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 grand children. 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.

3.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 harassing him. It was also alleged that the sons of the landlady were residing with her and the landlady did not need more accommodation because other tenants who were living in the building had vacated the accommodations, which were again let out by her to new tenants on higher rent. He also stated that the landlady was having one more house No. 377, N-2 Road, Lal Bungalow, Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur.

4.Both the parties were directed by the prescribed authority to submit their affidavits in support of their claims and counter-claims.

5.The prescribed authority vide Order dated 05.03.2003 allowed the release application of the landlady and directed the appellant-tenant to hand over vacant possession of the rented accommodation to the landlady within one month.

6.Against the said Order, Rent Appeal No.17 of 2003 was filed by the appellant-tenant before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 05.01.2004.

7.Being aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order of the Appellate Authority, the appellant-tenant preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3132 of 2004 before the High Court of Allahabad, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by impugned Judgment. The relevant paragraph of the Judgment is extracted as under:-

“The courts below after taking into consideration the entire material on record, recorded finding of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of landlord. The impugned Order requires no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

However, the petitioner is granted one year’s time to vacate the premises, provided that within one month from today, he files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority that on or before expiry of aforesaid period of one year he will willingly vacate and handover the possession of the house in dispute to the landlord.”

8.Now, the appellant-tenant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave chal