Back
1987 Supreme(All) 582
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.P. SINGH, J.
Vatsala Nayar - Appellant
Versus
Vandana Tandon - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 15717 of 1987
Decided on : Dec 17, 1987
Advocate appeared:
S.M. Dayal
A co-owner of an accommodation is entitled to file an application for release under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and a non-tenant has no locus standi to contest such an application.
Headnote:
U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 21 (1) (A) - LANDLORD'S APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF ACCOMMODATION - MAINTAINABILITY - CO-OWNERS AS LANDLORDS - NEED OF LANDLORD - COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP - LOCUS STANDI OF NON-TENANT TO CONTEST RELEASE APPLICATION - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the widow of an officer of I. E. L., challenged the order upholding the release of accommodation occupied by her after her husband's death. The landlady, Smt. Vandana Tandon, filed an application for release under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972, claiming bonafide need for her own use and occupation. The petitioner contested the application, denying the landlady's title and claiming to be a tenant. The Prescribed Authority and the Additional District Judge dismissed the petitioner's objections and allowed the release application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application for release was maintainable as Smt. Vandana Tandon was a co-owner of the accommodation and entitled to occupy it. The court also found that the petitioner was not a tenant or sub-tenant and had no locus standi to contest the release application. The court further held that the landlady's need for the accommodation was genuine and bonafide, and that greater hardship would be caused to her if the release application was not allowed.
Issues: 1. Whether the application for release was maintainable, considering that it was filed by one of the co-owners of the accommodation? 2. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to contest the release application, considering that she was not a tenant or sub-tenant? 3. Whether the landlady's need for the accommodation was genuine and bonafide, and whether greater hardship would be caused to her if the release application was not allowed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the application for release was maintainable as Smt. Vandana Tandon was a co-owner of the accommodation and entitled to occupy it. The court relied on the provisions of Rule 15 (2) and Rule 13 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (R. L. R. E.) Rules, 1972, which allow for the signing of the application by one or more of the co-landlords and the arraying of the other co-landlords as proforma opposite parties. 2. The court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to contest the release application as she was not a tenant or sub-tenant. The court relied on the fact that the contract of tenancy was between the landlady and I. E. L., and that there was no evidence of a new contract of tenancy between the petitioner and the landlady or her mother. 3. The court held that the landlady's need for the accommodation was genuine and bonafide, and that greater hardship would be caused to her if the release application was not allowed. The court considered the landlady's circumstances, including the fact that she was living with her husband and children in one room and that her husband could not receive clients and guests in that room.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
R. P. Singh, J.
1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, dated 20-5-1987, dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Kanpur dated 12-5-1986 in proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 Smt. Vandana Tandon filed an application for the release of the accommodation of premises no. 10/436-A, Khalasi Lines, Kanpur which was let out to Indian Explosives Ltd. Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the I. E. L.) and was in occupation of its officer, P. S. Nayar, the husband of the petitioner, who expired in August 1982. The I. E. L. however, continued to retain the house in its tenancy and the same remained to be occupied by the petitioner after the death of her husband. The case of the landlady, respondent no. 1, is that her mother Smt. Saroj Bhalla was the owner of the accommodation in dispute which had been let out to I. E. L. initially on 7th July, 1974, for a period of three years and then subsequently renewed for three successive period on the same terms and conditions to the I. E. L. except some variation in rent from 7-7-1977 to 6-7-1980 and then from 7-7-1980 to 6-7-1983 and lastly from 7-7-1983 to 6-7-1987. The I. E. L. had taken the aforesaid accommodation for the residence of its officer Sri P. S. Nayar, husband of the petitioner, who later died on 25th August, 1982, but the I. E. L. retained the accommodation in dispute in its tenancy for the occupation of its officers, and even after the death of Sri P. S. Nayar, the petitioner who is widow of Sri P. S. Nayar continued to remain in occupation of the same, Smt. Saroj Bhalla, however, died on 7-10-1984 leaving behind the accommodation in dispute to her heirs including Smt. Vandana Tandon, respondent no. 1, who after her marriage with Sanjiv Tandon, a Chartered Accountant, was living in Kanpur in 117/85 Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur with her in-laws.
Smt. Vandana Tandon, respondent no. 1 in the case, moved an application in November 1984, under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act that she is the landlady of the accommodation and needed the same for her use and occupation and that she has to live with her in-laws after her marriage in one room causing her great hardship and that her need for the accommodation is bonaflde and genuine.; The I. E. L. filed a written statement admitting the bonafide and genuine need of the landlady and that they had no objection to the accommodation being released. The petitioner, however, then moved an application for her impleadment in the case and filed her written statement contesting the release application filed by respondent no. 1 on the ground that though the accommodation in dispute initially let out to I. E. L. and was in occupation of her husband who was an officer of the company but after the death of her husband on 25 -8-1982, on the basis of an agreement between the petitioner, the I. E. L. and Smt. Saroj Bhalla, the petitioner continued to pay the rent of the accommodation to Smt. Saroj Bhalla through the I. E. L. The petitioner contested the maintainability of the application by Smt. Vandana Tandon, respondent no. 1, on the ground that being one of the daughters of Smt. Saroj Bhalla she is not entitled to maintain the application as Smt. Vandana Tandon is only one of the heirs of Smt. Saroj Bhalla and further that the house is shown to belong to Sri R. N. Bhalla, husband of Smt. Saroj Bhalla and further that after the death of her husband, the petitioner continued to pay the rent through the I. E. L. and hence the petitioner is the tenant of the accommodation. The case of the petitioner further is that since she has denied the title of the respondent no. 1 to the accommodation in dispute and intricate question of title are involved and hence the application should have been retur
