Back
2013 Supreme(All) 1730
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ramesh Kumar, J.
Shanti Devi -Appellant
Versus
Shyam Nath Nagar -Respondent
C.M.W.P.No. 36078 of 2013
Decided On : 08-07-2013
For the Appellant : Kiran Kumar Arora
For the Respondent: Atul Mehra, S.K.Mehrotra
The landlord's genuine and bonafide need, as well as the comparative hardship, justified the release of the tenanted house under Section 21(1-A) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
Headnote:
Tenants - Writ Petition - U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 - Section 21(1-A) - Section 21 - Summary: The court discussed the landlord's genuine and bonafide need for release of the tenanted house under Section 21(1-A) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The court emphasized the applicability of Section 21(1-A) and the landlord's hardship in not being able to reside in his own house after retirement. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mohd Ayub and another v. Mukesh Chand, emphasizing the landlord's requirement need not be a bare necessity and the comparative hardship favoring the landlord.
Fact of the Case:
The tenants filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, dismissing their appeal against the release of the tenanted house by the landlord under Section 21(1-A) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord had a genuine and bonafide need for the release of the house under Section 21(1-A) and that the comparative hardship favored the landlord.
Issues: The main issue was the landlord's entitlement to release the tenanted house under Section 21(1-A) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, contested by the tenants on the grounds of the landlord's genuine need and comparative hardship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord's genuine and bonafide need, as well as the comparative hardship in not being able to reside in his own house after retirement, justified the release of the tenanted house under Section 21(1-A) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, but the eviction of the petitioners was stayed for three months if they undertook to vacate the premises within two weeks.
2. This is a writ petition by the tenants challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, Court no.1, Bijnor, dated 22nd May, 2013 by which the Rent Control Appeal No.01 of 2006, filed by the petitioners against the order of the Prescribed Authority, i.e., Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagina, Bijnor, dated 24th January, 2006 in Case No. 5 of 1997, Shyam Nath Nagar v. Smt. Shanti Devi has been dismissed.
3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondents are the owners of the house situated at Basdar Darwaja , Mohalla Gujaratiyan, Kasba, Pargana and Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor, owned by late Shyamnath Nagar, who was an employee in the Irrigation Department. The tenanted house was initially let out to Chet Ram Sharma and after his death, the same was being occupied by his wife Smt. Shanti Devi and sons Chandra Prakash and Bhanu Prakash. Sri Shyamnath Nagar, a year before his retirement in 1998 from service, had moved a release application, under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for release of the house in question. It appears that initially the release application was moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, however, later on in the year 2007, Section 21(1-A) has also been added. It was the case of the land-lord that after the retirement from the government service in the year 1998, there was a requirement of the house in dispute for residential purposes. Further, one son of defendant no.1, Narendra Kumar, was in government service and is residing at Himanchal Pradesh and the other son, Umendra Tiwari, was residing at Dhampur in Linepar area and another son was residing at Tehsil Chandpur. It was also the case of the landlord that the defendant no.1, most of the time, resides outside alongwith her sons whereas in respect of the defendant -Bhanu Prakas, it has been stated that he also did not reside in the house in dispute and he is in government service in Ram Nagar, District Nainital where he is residing Son of defendant no.2-Bhanu Prakash is also employed in Delhi and he resides at Delhi. However, it is the case of Chandra Prakash that he alongwith his mother Smt. Shanti Devi and brother Bhanu Prakash reside in the house in dispute. Since after the retirement of the landlord, Shyamnath Nagar, the house in dispute has not been vacated, though repeated efforts were made, he went to Chandausi, District Moradabad where he was residing in a rented accommodation at the rent of Rs.1,200/= per month. Subsequently, he died and he has been substituted by his legal heirs.
4. Before the Trial court, the case of the land-lord was that after the retirement, in the year 1998, he was entitled to get his house released under Section 21(1-A) as there was a genuine and bonafide need inasmuch as he required one residential house after his retirement to reside.The case has been contested by the petitioners being the tenants on the ground that the son of Shyamnath Nagar is residing at Delhi and wife of Shyamnath Nagar is also residing with her son.He was also having another house, which has been sold by him on 3rd of January, 1994.The need, as stated by the landlord, is not genuine and the comparative hardship is also in favour of the tenants.
5. The Trial court, after going through the facts and the record, came to the conclusion that the landlord has a bonafide need and the comparative hardship is also in his favour, therefore, allowed the release application. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Trial court, the petitioners filed the appeal, which too has been dismissed by the impugned order. The appellate court has held that the landlord, Shyamnath Nagar was a government employee in the Irrigation Department.He moved the release application within one year from the da
