Point of Law: Bona fide need of the landlord has to be examined as on the date of institution of proceedings and if a decree for eviction is passed, the death of the landlord during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the tenant will make no difference as his heirs are fully entitled to defend the estate."

JUDGMENT :

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

"Crucial date for release of the accommodation in a rent case on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord, effect of the death of the landlord during pendency of writ petition and legality of direction given by the Appellate Court to the landlord to provide alternative accommodation to the tenant, are the main questions involved in this petition."

1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocated, assisted by Sri Rishi Kant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhanshu Kumar holding brief of Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/respondent.

Order on Substitution Application No.03 of 2019

2. The sole petitioner Sri Kishan Chandra has died leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant-respondent has no objection to the aforesaid substitution application. Therefore, the Substitution Application is allowed. Necessary correction in the array of parties be carried out.

Order on Writ Petition

FACTS OF THE CASE

4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the original plaintiff Kishan Chandra was the owner and landlord of the disputed house situate in Qasba Jalesar District Etah, measuring 14' x 38'. In the said house, the entire ground floor portion, except a shop measuring 3' 9' x 10' 3', was occupied by the father of the petitioner, namely, Sri Prem Chandra as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.20/-. The aforesaid' other shop measuring 3' 9'x10' 3' was occupied by another tenant Sri Girraj Kishore.

5. The original plaintiff Kishan Chandra was carrying on his business of cloth from a tenant shop which was owned by one Sri Hari Om, who filed a release application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 being Case No.47 of 1983, which was decreed and the appeal filed by the original plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed and the shop has been vacated by the plaintiff. Thus, the petitioner was in the need of a shop to start his business.

6. The original tenant Prem Chandra died and the tenancy of the disputed shop was succeeded by his sons, namely, Padam Chandra Jain, Subhash Chandra Jain, Dinesh Chandra Jain, one daughter Smt. Shailesh Jain and the widow Smt. Prabhawati Devi.

7. On the ground of bonafide need of the disputed shop for his business and also for employment of his sons, the original plaintiff/petitioner filed P.A. Case No.02 of 1994 (Kishan Chandra Jain v. Padam Chandra Jain and others), which was decreed after about 20 years by judgment dated 23.2.2006, passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Etah and the disputed shop was directed to be vacated.

8. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 22.3.2006 one of the defendant-tenant/respondent no.1 filed Rent Control Appeal No.02 of 2006 (Dinesh Chandra v. Kishan Chandra and others), which was conditionally allowed by the impugned judgment dated 23.8.2014, passed by the District Judge, Etah directing as under :

^^;g jsUV dUVªksy vihy va'kr% Lk'kRkZ Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku fu;r izkf/kdkjh@flfoy tt¼twfu;j fMohtu½] ,Vk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukafdr 23-02-2006 va'kr% bl izdkj la'kksf/kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Hkou Lokeh@izR;FkhZ] vihykFkhZ@fdjk;snkj dks fodYi esa jkexksiky dh fdjk;snkjh okyh nqdku ftl ij pkj eafty nqdku dh bekjr cuh gS vFkok viuh iRuh o vius iq= iznhi ds LokfeRo okyh nqdku ftlesa pkj eafty Hkou cu jgk vkSj mlesa nks eafty iw.kZ gks pqdh gS] esa ls dksbZ ,d nqdku Hkwry ij vihykFkhZ@fdjk;snkj dks ekdsZV jsV ds fdjk;s ij nks ekg ds vanj miyC/k djk ns rks vihykFkhZ@fdjk;snkj iz'uxr nqdku dks fjDr djds mldk dCtk Hkou Lokeh@izR;FkhZ dks ns nks ;fn Hkou Lokeh bl fodYi ds Lohdkj ugh djrk gS rks ;g vihy Lohdkj le>h tk;sxhA^^

9. Aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned judgment, the original plaintiff/landlord has filed the present writ petition.

10. During pendency of the petition, the original plaintiff Kishan Chandra died on 08.01.2019, leaving behind his widow Vijay Lakshmi, four