Back
2010 Supreme(UK) 454
2011 (1) UAD 625
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Agarwala
Writ Petition 1787 of 2009 (M/S)
SHRI MIZAN SINGH – Petitioner
Versus
SMT. MUNNI GOEL – Respondent
Decided on : 21.07.2010
For the Petitioner:Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate
Headnote:(A) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Sec. 21(1)(a) Explanation (i) — Bonafide need — Comparative hardship — Disputed accommodation used for residential purpose — Also, tenant's family had acquired a residential building in the same municipality — Therefore, Exp. (i) to Sec. 21(1)(a) of the Act squarely applicable — And tenant cannot object to the bonafide need and comparative hardship in the release application filed by the landlady. (Para 15)
(B) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Sec. 21(1)(a) — Bonafide requirement — Additional accommodation required for growing need of the family — Landlady being 73 years old and her husband 78 years old have arthritic problem — Therefore, difficult for them to climb stairs, leading to the first floor — Held that the requirement of ground floor by the landlady bonafide and genuine. (Para 16)
(C) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Sec. 21(1)(a) — Bonafide requirement — Held — That the rooms in accommodation of the landlady, insufficient — Therefore, the lifestyle which the landlords were living cannot be curtailed — The accommodation which the landlord were utilizing could not be adjusted to meet the additional need for the family members of the landlords. (Para 16)
¼v½ mRrj izns'k uxjh; Hkou ¼fdjk;s ij nsuk] fdjk;k vkSj [kkyh djkuk½ fu;a=.k vfèkfu;e] 1972] /kkjk 21¼1½(a) & Li"Vhdj.k (i) okLrfod vko';drk & rqyukRed d"V & fookfnr edku jgus ds iz;ksx esa vk jgk Fkk & vkSj fdjk;snkj ds ifjokj }kjk mlh uxj ikfydk {ks= esa ,d fjgk;'kh edku d; dj fy;k x;k Fkk & blfy, Li"Vhdj.k (i) /kkjk 21¼1½(a) Li"Vr;k ykxw gksrk gS vkSj fdjk;snkj edku ekyfdu }kjk okLrfod vko';drk vkSj rqyukRed d"V ds vk/kkj ij edku [kkyh djkus ds izkFkZuk i= ij vkifRr ugha dj ldrkA ¼izLrj 15½
¼c½ mRrj izns'k uxjh; Hkou ¼fdjk;s ij nsuk] fdjk;k vkSj [kkyh djkuk½ fu;a=.k vfèkfu;e] 1972] /kkjk 21¼1½(a) & ds vUrxZr okLrfod vko';drk & ifjokj dh c<+rh vko';drk ds okLrs vfrfjDr edku dh vko';drk Fkh & edku ekyfdu 73 o"khZ; gksus ds dkj.k vkSj mldk ifr 78 o"kks± dk gksus dh otg ls mUgsa tksM+ksa ds nnZ dh leL;k Fkh blfy, muds fy, lhf<+;ksa ij p<+uk dfBu Fkk tks fd izFke ry rd tkrk Fkk & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd Hkwry dh vko';drk edku ekyfdu dh okLrfod vkSj lR; FkhA ¼izLrj 16½
¼l½ mRrj izns'k uxjh; Hkou ¼fdjk;s ij nsuk] fdjk;k vkSj [kkyh djkuk½ fu;a=.k vfèkfu;e] 1972] /kkjk 21¼1½(a) & okLrfod vko';drk & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd edku ekyfdu ds edku esa dejs vi;kZIr gSa & blfy, ftl thou Lrj dks edku ekfyd iz;ksx dj jgs Fks] vfrfjDr vko';drk] ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ds fy,] lek;ksftr ugha dh tk ldrh FkhA ¼izLrj 16½
The landlady/opposite party filed an application u/S 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the accommodation in the occupation of the tenant on account of her personal need for her family members.
2. The landlady contended that she had four rooms in her occupation on the first floor of the building which comprised of two bed rooms, one dining room and one drawing room apart from a kitchen and a bath room. The landlady contended that she is about 75 years old and her husband is 78 years old and, on account of old age and, being arthritic, it had become very difficult for her to climb the stairs leading to the first floor. Further, her husband was operated for prostrate and her husband had been advised not to climb the stairs after the operation. Other than that, the landlady’s son, daughter-in-law and a 15 year old grandson were also residing in the same premises and a separate room was also required for the growing need of the grandson. On the other hand, the tenant was living in the accommodation on the ground floor and, over the years, had made additions and alterations in the said accommodation and had also started a dairy business. The landlady submitted that the tenant and his family members, over the years, had occupied a commercial as well as a residential building in the same municipality and, therefore, there was no difficulty for the tenant to shift in his own premises.
3. The application was resisted by the tenant who submitted that the landlady had no bonafide need nor was there any requirement for any additional accommodation. The tenant submitted that the landlady had four rooms which were adequate for herself and for her family members. On the other hand, the tenant contended that he had no other accommodation where he could shift his residence or his business and that he had been using the premises not only for his residential purpose but also for his dairy business which he had been carrying on for several decades.
4. Various evidence in the form of affidavits had been filed by the respective parties. The landlady filed evidence to show that the tenant’s wife Smt. Bano Devi owned a flat in the same vicinity by means of a sale deed dated 6th January, 2000. Another son of the tenant Surendra Singh was having his own residence. Another son Lokendra Singh had purchased a shop in the year 2001 as well as a residential portion on 29th October, 2000 and that another son Virendra Singh had purchased a residential portion on 16.11.2005.
5. On the other hand, the tenant submitted that pursuant to the family settlement dated 6th January, 2003, the flat in the name of his wife Bano Devi was transferred to his son on 15th July, 2006 had that another son Virendra Singh who was in the army had sold his residential portion to a third party on 1st September, 2006. The tenant also gave evidence to the effect that four flats of two rooms each were let out by the landlady to different persons during the pendency of the proceedings and, in that light, submitted that the need of the landlady for the release of the accommodation in question was a farce.
6. In the light of the evidence filed by the parties, the Prescribed Authority considered the matter and rejected the application of the landlady holding that the landlady was unable to prove her bonafide need for the accommodation in question. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the four rooms, which the landlady possessed, were sufficient for herself and for her family members. On the other hand, the Prescribed Authority found that the tenant had no accommodation of his own where he could shift and that he was carrying on the business of dairy for several years which would cause undue hardship in the event he was forced to shift and found that the comparative hardship was more in favour of the tenant rather than in favour of the landlady.
7. The landlady, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the prescribed authority, filed an app
