Back
1990 Supreme(All) 874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.B. Mehrotra, J.
Ram Dass Yadav - Appellant
Versus
IVth Additional District Judge And Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13589 of 1990
Decided On : 22-10-1990
For the Appellant : B.D. Mandhyan,
The Prescribed Authority has jurisdiction to examine the availability of accommodation in a house for satisfying the need of the landlord, despite the existence of a compromise decree declaring a person to be the limited owner of the said house.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - RELEASE OF ACCOMMODATION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION - COMPROMISE DECREE - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION OF RENT CONTROL AUTHORITIES.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an application for release of the accommodation on the ground of bonafide requirement. The tenant contested the application contending that the need of the landlord is not bonafide and that the landlord has an alternative accommodation available in house No. 41, Hazaryana, Jhansi.
Finding of the Court:
The Prescribed Authority held that the landlord's need was not bonafide as he could have accommodated himself in house No. 41, Hazaryana, Jhansi. The appellate court reversed the finding of the Prescribed Authority and held that the landlord's need was bonafide.
Issues: 1. Whether the Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to examine the availability of accommodation in house No. 41, Hazaryana, Jhansi, for satisfying the need of the landlord, despite the alleged compromise decree declaring Smt. Kishori Devi (the grand mother of the Respondent-landlord) to be limited owner of the said house. 2. Whether house No. 41 Hazaryana, Jhansi was in occupation of Sri Roop Narain Shandilya as tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to examine the availability of accommodation in house No. 41, Hazaryana, Jhansi, for satisfying the need of the landlord, despite the alleged compromise decree declaring Smt. Kishori Devi (the grand mother of the Respondent-landlord) to be limited owner of the said house. 2. House No. 41 Hazaryana, Jhansi was not in occupation of Sri Roop Narain Shandilya as tenant.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the judgment of the appellate court was set aside, and the case was sent back to the appellate authority to decide afresh the question of bonafide need of the Respondent landlord.
R.B. Mehrotra, J.
By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner, who is tenant of premises No. 433B, Sunder Bhawan, Sadar Bazar Jhansi has challenged the order of Fourth Additional District Judge Jhansi dated 15th May 1990 in R.C. Appeal No. 2 of 1986 between Ajai Prakash Pateria and Anr. v. Ram Pass Yadav and Ors..
2. Necessary facts giving rise to the present petition are that Sri Ajai Prakash Pateria and Sri Vijn Prakash Pateria morel an application u/s 21(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 with the allegation that they are the owner and landlord of the House No. 433-B, Sunder Bhawan, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi and Ram Dass is tenant of the house at the rate of Rs. 12 50 paise per month Earlier, ihis house was owned by Sri Ram Bahadur Ganga Sahai Mushaddi K>an On 13th November, 1980 this house was purchased by the present landlord by registered sale-deed of the same date The landlord Respondent's case is that they are in the employment in Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd, Jhansi (herein after referred to as 'BHEL') situate in Khailar. They hive not been allotted any house in the residential colony of BHEL. The landlord further stated that at present they are living with their parents in house No. 76A Sadar Bazar, Jhansi. This house, in which landlord's parents are living is owned by Cantonment Board and their parents are only tenant of the house. The landlord has a family of four members. The applicant No. 1, Ajai Prakash Pateria, his wife and five years old daughter and the applicant No. 2 Smt. Vijai Prakash Pateria, who is unmarried. The landlord served a notice on the tenant and the tenant having refused to vacate the premises moved an application before the prescribed authority u/s 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) for the release of the house on the ground of bonafide requirement.
3. The present Petitioner, the tenant of the premises in dispute contested the application and filed written statement contending therein that the need of Respondent/Landlord is not bonafide. The Petitioner tenant's had been living in the house in dispute for the last thirty years. The landlord never applied for allotment of any house in BHEL, even though residential accommodation is provided by BHEL to accommodate their employees. The Respondents have wilfully not applied for the allotment of any house in the residential colony of BHEL for the purposes of digging out a ground for evicting the Petitioner tenant.
4. It was specifically contended in the written statement by the Petitioner tenant that besides the house No. 76A, situate in Sadar ttazar, Jhansi, where the landlord's parents are living. There is another house No. 41, situate in Hazaryana, Jhansi, which is lying vacant and if the Petitioner has any need of the house he could have occupied the said house No. 41 situate in Hazaryana. This house No. 41 situate at Hazaryana consists of six rooms, court yard, latrine and bath room. It was stated In the said written statement that the Petitioner can comfortably accommodate himself in this house. The Petitioner tenant also contended that house No. 76A, where the Petitioner’s parents are residing consists of six rooms and the Petitioner can comfortably live with their parents as they have no other child except the Petitioner and only for two persons, house No. 76-A, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi, is quite big enough where the Petitioner’s family can also be accommodated.
5. This written statement was filed by the Petitioner’s tenant on 18th April 1984 Subsequent thereto Sri Ajai Prakasb Pateria, who is one of the landlord of the premises in dispute filed his affidavit on 19th April 1984 stating that he has no concern with the house No. 41 situate at Hazaryana, Jhansi and stated that he is not the owner of the said house, neither he has any right over the said house the allegation of the Petitioner tenant that the landlord are the order of the house is patently incorrect. This affidavit of Aja
