The central legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord's need for eviction must be bona fide and not filed with an ulterior motive.

U.C. Dhyani, J.

1. By filing the present writ petitions, the petitioners seek to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment dated 19.08.2009, passed by Addl. District Judge/IV F.T.C. Dehradun, in Rent Control Appeal no. 95 of 2006.

2. Respondent no. 1 filed a release application in the court of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (as applicable in Uttarakhand) for the need of her son, daughter-in-law, widowed daughter and her grand children. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed such release application, vide judgment and order dated 05.06.2006. Aggrieved against the judgment, passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), in P.A. Case No. 53 of 2001, titled as Smt. Sarna Devi vs. Suresh Chandra alias Suresh Pal and others, a rent control appeal, bearing no. 95 of 2006, was preferred by the landlady. The appeal was allowed by learned Addl. District Judge/IV F.T.C. Dehradun, vide order dated 19.08.2009. The judgment and order dated 05.06.2006, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) in P.A. Case no. 53 of 2001, was set aside. The appellant was directed to comply with second proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.08.2009, two separate writ petitions were filed on behalf of the petitioners, which are being decided by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity and convenience.

3. Smt. Sarna Devi is the owner of property situated at 202, Block II, Chukhuwala, Dehradun. The petitioners are the tenants in their respective portions. Whereas Suresh Chandra is the tenant in portion ‘A’ Sukhbir Singh is the tenant in portion ‘B’ as shown at the foot of the application for release. In the release application, it was stated that Suresh Chandra is carrying the business of making and selling of furniture at the monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. Another writ petitioner Sukhbir Singh is a tenant in one room on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. It was the case of landlady in her release application, that she has a large family and she has to support her son, daughter-in-law, widowed daughter and her two children and two married daughters, who often visit her. She urgently required additional accommodation to provide proper and comfortable living rooms and kitchens etc. for her children, who are facing great inconvenience and hardship on account of shortage of accommodation. The release application was contested by the tenants-writ petitioners, who filed their written statements, wherein they admitted their tenancy, but denied the claim of the landlady.

4. According to the tenants-writ petitioners, the claim of the landlady was not bona fide and the release application was moved mala fide with the intention to harass the tenants and evicting them.

5. The Prescribed Authority, on considering the claims and counter-claims, rejected the release application of the landlady, which application was moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent-landlady that it is a settled position of law that the bona fide requirement means that the need must be honest. It is not a mere desire or wish, and while deciding this question, the court would not look into the broad aspects without getting swayed away by any consideration. According to learned counsel, the crucial date for deciding the bona fide requirement of landlady is the date of her application for eviction. Reliance was placed upon the rulings of G.C. Kapoor vs. Nand Kumar Bhasin and Another, 2002 (1) SCC 610.

6. This fact is under no dispute that the property mentioned in portion ‘A’ and portion ‘B’ is under the tenancy of the writ petitioners and is governed by th