Back
1989 Supreme(All) 667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.P. Singh, J.
Om Prakash And Another - Appellants
Versus
Ii Additional District Judge And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21838 of 1987
Decided On : 21-11-1989
For the Appellant : Prakash Krishna and Radha Krishna
For the Respondent: V.P. Varshney
The court clarified the interpretation and application of S. 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, emphasizing the importance of considering the landlord's genuine need, comparative hardship, and compliance with the notice requirement in determining the release of accommodation.
Headnote:
U.P. Act XIII of 1972, S. 21(1)(a) - Release of Accommodation - Landlord's Need - Comparative Hardship - Notice to Tenant - Interpretation and Application.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord sought release of disputed accommodation under U.P. Act XIII of 1972, S. 21(1)(a), claiming genuine need and greater hardship. Tenant contested, arguing landlord's need was not genuine and that they would face greater hardship if evicted.
Finding of the Court:
Court found that landlord had purchased the property more than three years before filing the application and had served a six-month notice to the tenant, fulfilling the requirements of S. 21(1)(a). The court also found that the landlord's need for the accommodation was genuine and that greater hardship would be caused if the accommodation was not released.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord had complied with the notice requirement under S. 21(1)(a) of the Act. 2. Whether the landlord's need for the accommodation was genuine and bonafide. 3. Whether greater hardship would be caused to the landlord if the accommodation was not released.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the landlord had complied with the notice requirement under S. 21(1)(a) as a period of three years had elapsed since the purchase of the accommodation and a six-month notice had been served to the tenant. 2. The court found that the landlord's need for the accommodation was genuine and bonafide based on the evidence presented, including the landlord's living conditions and financial situation. 3. The court determined that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord if the accommodation was not released, considering the landlord's need for a larger and more affordable living space compared to the tenant's situation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's writ petition, upholding the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court. However, the court granted the tenant time to vacate the premises until 1st June 1990 upon filing an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority.
R.P. Singh, J.
By means of this writ petition the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by Respondents 1 and 2 allowing the application of the landlord for the release of the disputed accommodation, house situate in Mohalla Kasdi Tola, Peer Gaib, Moradabad in proceedings u/s 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the Petitioners are the tenants of the disputed accommodation of which the Respondent No. 3 is the landlord. The landlord purchased the disputed accommodation on 6th October 1978 and moved the present application for the release of the disputed accommodation on the ground that he is living in a tenanted house paying a rent of Rs. 375/- per month in a two room accommodation and there are seven members in the family of the landlord including his wife, three sons and one daughter all grown up and adult and also a married daughter is normally residing with him. The two room accommodation in which the landlord is living as tenant is wholly insufficient for their residence and moreover, they have to pay a high rent of Rs. 375/- per month which the landlord cannot easily afford to pay and hence the need for the disputed accommodation is bonafide and genuine and that greater hardship would be caused if the accommodation is not released in his favour.
3. The application was contested by the Petitioner on the ground that the need of the landlord is neither bonafide nor genuine and that they are well to do persons, well placed and can well afford to pay rent in their tenanted house and further that the Petitioner himself is a class IV employee in the Railways and he would be put to greater hardship in case the accommodation is released in favour of the landlord. The Prescribed Authority on going through the evidence on record and applying his mind to the same came to a conclusion that the need of the Respondent No. 3 for the disputed accommodation is genuine and bonafide and that greater hardship would be caused in case the accommodation is not released in his favour. The Petitioner feeling aggrieved went up in appeal before Respondent No. 1 who also dismissed the appeal upholding the finding on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded by the Prescribed Authority. It is these orders which are challenged in the present writ petition.
4. Heard Sri. Prakash Krishna learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V. P. Varshney for the landlord Respondent No. 3.
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the landlord Respondent No. 3 had purchased the house on 6th October 1978 he could not file the application u/s 21(1)(a) unless the landlord has given a notice to the Petitioner not less than six months before he moved the application for the release of the accommodation u/s 21(1)(a) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in absence of such notice the application itself was not maintainable. The learned Counsel also contended that the finding on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship is not based on perusal of evidence on record and hence the same is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned Counsel for the landlord-Respondent No. 3 contended that a clear finding has been recorded by the appellate Court and it has not been denied that notice was duly served on Om Prakash Petitioner No. 1 and hence there was due compliance of service of six months notice to the tenant. The learned Counsel for the landlord Respondent No. 3 further contended that the finding on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship being concurrently recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the learned Additional District Judge, it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge this finding in writ jurisdiction before this Court.
7. Now coming to the first submission raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there was no due service of six months notice as contemplated by the 1st proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1)
