Back
1987 Supreme(All) 590
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.P. SINGH, J.
Panna Lal - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Raj Kumar Singh - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ No. 14543 of 1987
Decided on : Dec 23, 1987
Advocate appeared:
D.V. Jaiswal
The need of a landlord who is a serving or retired Indian Soldier or the widow of such a soldier shall be deemed to be sufficient for the purposes of section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
Headnote:
U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 - Section 21 (1) (a) - Release of Premises - Bonafide Need - Landlord's Need Deemed Sufficient - Explanation (iii) - Armed Forces Personnel - Interpretation and Application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order of the Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, allowing the release of premises to respondents no. 1 and 2, who claimed to be the landlords and owners of the property. The petitioners contended that the application for release was not maintainable as it was not signed by all the co-landlords and that the Will, on the basis of which the respondents claimed ownership, was not genuine. The respondents argued that the application was maintainable as one co-owner can maintain an action for eviction and that the Will was duly proved and accepted by the Nagar Mahapalika.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application for release was maintainable as one co-owner can maintain an action for eviction and that the Will was duly proved and accepted by the Nagar Mahapalika. The court further held that the case of respondents no. 1 and 2 fell within the ambit of Explanation (iii) to section 21 (1) of the Act, which provides that the need of a landlord who is a serving or retired Indian Soldier or the widow of such a soldier shall be deemed to be sufficient for the purposes of section 21 (1) (a). Therefore, the court found that the need of respondents no. 1 and 2 for the accommodation in dispute was bona fide and genuine and that greater hardship would be caused to them if their release application was not allowed.
Issues: 1. Whether the application for release of premises was maintainable? 2. Whether the Will, on the basis of which the respondents claimed ownership, was genuine? 3. Whether the need of respondents no. 1 and 2 for the accommodation in dispute was bona fide and genuine?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the application for release was maintainable as one co-owner can maintain an action for eviction and that the Will was duly proved and accepted by the Nagar Mahapalika. 2. The court held that the case of respondents no. 1 and 2 fell within the ambit of Explanation (iii) to section 21 (1) of the Act, which provides that the need of a landlord who is a serving or retired Indian Soldier or the widow of such a soldier shall be deemed to be sufficient for the purposes of section 21 (1) (a). Therefore, the court found that the need of respondents no. 1 and 2 for the accommodation in dispute was bona fide and genuine and that greater hardship would be caused to them if their release application was not allowed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and allowed the petitioners time to vacate the accommodation in dispute and handover vacant possession of the same to the contesting respondents no. 1 and 2 by 31st May, 1988, provided that the petitioners deposit the damages for use and occupation of the accommodation in dispute due upto 31st May, 1988, within one month from the date of the judgment.
R. P. Singh, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the VII Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, dated 18-6-1987.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents no. 1 and 2 filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act no. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act),, for the release of premises no. 7/91-A, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur Nagar on the ground that they are the landlords and owners of the same in which the petitioners were living as tenants. Respondent no. 1 was a Medical Officer in the Indian Air Force and had retired and after his retirement, he had been living with his brother Sri Pawan Pratap Singh and his mother, but on account of differences between his wife and mother, it became impossible for him to continue to live with his mother and brother and his case is that his need for the accommodation in dispute is bonafide and genuine. The case put forward by respondent no. 2 is that he is a Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force and has not been given any official residence with the result that he alongwith his wife and two children are compelled to live in one room accommodation of the Officers Mess and that he wants to settle his family at Kanpur so that education of his children may not suffer. It was further alleged by respondents no. 1 and 2 that the accommodation in dispute alongwith other property was owned by late Raja Shyam Pratap Singh who died on 21-2-1979 leaving his widow, 3 sons and 3 daughters and late Raja Shyam Pratap Singh had executed a Will, dated 10-12-1976 in accordance with which the accommodation in dispute came to the share of respondents no. 1 and 2 and has been so recorded in the records of the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur and separately assessed. Respondents no. 1 and 2 thus set up their need for the accommodation being bonafide and genuine on the basis of which they filed the application for the release of the same in their favour.
The tenants, who are the petitioners in the present writ petition, contested the application for release of the accommodation on the ground that the need of respondents no. 1 and 2 was not bonafide and genuine and that they have no alternative accommodation and further that greater hardship would be caused to the petitioners if the release application is allowed.
3. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the evidence led by the parties, held that the need for the accommodation of respondents no. 1 and 2 are neither bonafide nor genuine and rejected the application for release, vide his order, dated 19th November, 1985 which was challenged by the respondents no. 1 and 2 by filing an appeal before the AddI. District Judge, respondent no. 3, who, on consideration of the evidence on record, held that the need of respondents no. 1 and 2 for the accommodation in dispute, was bonafide and genuine and that greater hardship would be caused to them if the application for release of the accommodation was not allowed and vide his order, dated 18-7-1987, he allowed the appeal ordering the release of the accommodation in dispute to respondents no. 1 and 2 which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the application for release of the accommodation in dispute was not maintainable by respondents no. 1 and 2 as the other heirs of late Raja Shyam Pratap Singh have not joined in the application and that the Will, on the basis of which the respondents no. 1 and 2 are claiming that the accommodation in dispute fell to their share, is not genuine Will as it has not been duly proved and hence the application was liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that on the basis of the Will executed by late Raja Shyam Pratap Singh, all his legal heirs including respondents no. 1 and 2 filed an application for mutation before the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. A copy of the application for mutation duly signed by all the
