A co-owner can independently file for eviction under rent control laws, and the landlord's bona fide need for property use outweighs tenant hardship claims.

JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Sri. Surya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri. Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 08.09.2023, passed by Additional District Judge, Sultanpur in Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2019, directing the petitioner to vacate the property situated at House No. 1119 (Second Floor), Ward No. 9 (Old No. 317), Nagar Panchayat Musafir Khana, District - Amethi and handing over vacant possession of the same to the respondent.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent has filed a suit for eviction under Section 21(1)A of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, against the petitioner with regard to aforesaid property. In his application it was stated that respondents were tenants of his late father Bhawani Prasad and on previous occasion also suit for eviction being Suit No. 371 of 1982 was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Musafir Khana, Amethi, and was dismissed in default on 01/03/1995. An application for recall was filed for setting aside the order dismissing the case for want of prosecution, which is still pending. It was further stated that the said property is in a dilapidated condition and requires immediate repair and also that family of respondent has increased and that his son Praveen Kumar is unemployed and he wants the said premises for the purpose of opening a shop for his son. It was stated that after having the property vacated from the petitioner the respondent wants to repair the said property and utilize the same for employment of his son.

4. The respondent has further stated that he has given repeated notices to the petitioner to vacate the said property but neither has he looked for any alternative accommodation nor has he vacated the said property. A legal notice was sent on 09.05.2014, in pursuance to which the petitioner has failed to vacate the said property nor has he given any satisfactory explanation to the said notice.

5. The petitioner has put in appearance in the said proceedings and contested the claim of respondent. In opposition he has submitted that the opposite party has a house in Ward No. 10 and also has a residence at Sultanpur-Lucknow highway and also owns four shops. He has further stated that neither the petitioner nor his father were ever tenants of opposite party. He had further stated that father of opposite party namely Bhawani Prasad has filed suit of eviction against petitioner but the said suit was dismissed by order dated 28.11.1987 by Additional Munsif, Sultanpur and an appeal against said order was also decided on 13.11.1992 by Ist Additional District Judge, Sultanpur remanding the matter back to the lower Court. Subsequently, the said suit has abated on 01.03.1995 against which an application for setting aside abatement is still pending.

6. The District Judge while deciding the appeal has considered all the issues in great detail and depth. The first issue considered is with regard to the multiplicity of litigation pending and also that previously suit was filed by the respondent for eviction which was dismissed on 28.11.1987. It has been submitted that in the Suit No. 371 of 1982 - Bhawani Prasad v. Ranji Lal, it was stated by the respondent/plaintiff that petitioner is tenant in the ground floor of the said premises on rent of Rs. 30/- per month. As there was wedding of daughter of the petitioner and for the said purpose first floor was given for short period for purposes of wedding, but it seems that the petitioner continued to retain possession of first floor and consequently a suit for eviction was filed. The said suit was dismissed only on the ground of jurisdiction holding that the petitioner could not demonstrate that first floor was given on license, and if first floor was given on rent then provisions of Act no. 13 of 1972 were applicable and consequently, suit was dismissed