Back
1999 Supreme(All) 1018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. K. Yog, J.
SARDAR PRITAM SINGH (DECD.) THROUGH L.RS. - Appellant
Versus
SARDAR PRAKASH SINGH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 6902 Of 1986
Decided On : 07/23/1999
L.L.Gupta, Ramanand
The court held that the landlord had a bona fide need for the tenanted premises and that the comparative hardship favored the landlord. The court relied on the subsequent events, such as the growth of the landlord's family, to determine the bona fide need.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - RELEASE APPLICATION - BONA FIDE NEED - COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - INTERPRETATION OF U.P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTIONS 2(1)(a), 14(1)(a) AND 21(1)(a).
Fact of the Case:
Landlord filed a release application seeking possession of the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide need and comparative hardship. The prescribed authority and the appellate court rejected the application. The landlord challenged the orders in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the landlord had a bona fide need for the tenanted premises as his family had grown and he required additional accommodation for his children and grandchildren. The court also held that the tenant had not made any efforts to find alternative accommodation and that the comparative hardship favored the landlord. The court quashed the orders of the prescribed authority and the appellate court and allowed the release application.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord had a bona fide need for the tenanted premises? 2. Whether the comparative hardship favored the landlord?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the landlord had a bona fide need for the tenanted premises as his family had grown and he required additional accommodation for his children and grandchildren. The court relied on the following factors: a. The landlord's family had increased from 12 to 17 members. b. The landlord's two sons were married and had children. c. The landlord's daughter was also married and had a child. d. The landlord's wife was advised not to climb stairs, and the family needed a room on the ground floor. e. The landlord needed a drawing room and a dining room. 2. The court held that the comparative hardship favored the landlord as the tenant had not made any efforts to find alternative accommodation.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders of the prescribed authority and the appellate court and allowed the release application.
( 1 ) PETITIONER. Sardar Pritam Singh (since deceased through his legal representatives Smt. Mahendra Kaur and others) is the owner and landlord of residential accommodation (House No. 178/195b. Roshan Bagh, Khuldabad. situate in the town of Allahabad ). He has been living in a portion of the said house. Admittedly, Khajan Singh, father of petitioner Sardar Prakash Singh (Respondent No. 1), was tenant in a portion of the said house in the past. Said Khajan Singh lived along with his sons (Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 Sardar Prakash Singh) in this very accommodation. After his death, petitioner and respondent No. 1 lived in specified portions in their tenancies. It appears that Sardar Pritam Singh (Petitioner] by means of registered sale deed dated June 4, 1980. purchased entire house, including the portion in the tenancy of Respondent no. 1. A true copy of the sale deed has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
( 2 ) THE petitioner. after purchasing the house, issued notice dated September 23, 1980 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and it was served upon respondent No. 1. as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition. Petitioner is admittedly landlord of respondent No. 1 and has filed a release application dated April 6, 1982 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) against his brother-tenant (respondent No. 1) alleging, inter alia, amongst other, that his family comprised of : a. 1. Sardar Pritam Singh (Self)2. Smt. Mahendra Kaur (His wife)B. 3. Surendra Pal Singh (Son)4. His wife 5. His son c. 6. Kuljeet Singh (Son)7. His wife 8. And one child. D. 9. Hardeep Singh (Son) (Of marriageable age-- marriage settled and to beperformed soon ). E. 10. Smt. Harjeet Kaur 11. Smt. Inderpai Kaur Married daughters. 12. Smt. Balvir Kaur (See Paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition and Paragraph 6 of the release application-Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). Landlord had with him following accommodation : ground FLOOR one room - 12ft. x 8ft. One room - 12ft. x 10ft. Motor Garage. Verandah, Kitchen. Latrine and bathroom. FIRST FLOOR one room - 12ft. x 10ft. One kitchen. Verandah, another Latrine, One kitchen (used as Store), one Verandah and common latrine. The other portions, in possession of other tenants, namely P. N. Sethi and Murlidhar, were vacated by those persons and were taken possession of by the landlord, but still his need was not fulfilled, as he required more accommodation in view of pending marriage of his grownup son, imminent requirement in view of growth of different units in the family and requirement of drawing room and guest room (Paragraph 15 of the release application ). It was also alleged that the relations of the two brothers-Petitioner and respondent No. 1 were strained which is a constant source of trouble and causing III effect upon the health of the landlord. Petitioner-landlord filed his affidavit in support of the averments contained in the release application (Annexure-4 to the writ petition ).
( 3 ) TENANT-RESPONDENT No. 1 contested release application by filing his written statement (Paper no. 12b) and affidavit (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition ). Landlord filed Rejoinder Affidavit (Paper No. 16b ). The landlord filed another affidavit along with the documents and material on record by way of evidence in support of his case. In the said affidavit (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) it is mentioned that wife of landlord was advised not to climb up stairs and doctors prescriptions were filed in support of the same. It is also asserted that Kuljeet Singh was going to be married with the daughter of Madan Singh in January. 1984. It was also alleged that landlord had only one small room, kitchen and verandah on first floor and that he got possession of other two rooms on the ground floor vacated by erstwhile tenant P, N. Sethi.
( 4 ) THE prescribed authority rejected release application vide impugned judgment and order dated june 5. 1985. Prescribed authority observed that no commission was issued for
