HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Mahendra Pal Sharma Dead And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s)

Versus Smt. Kasturi Devi (Dead) And 10 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ajai Mani Tiwari Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. This matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 13.12.1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority in PA Case No. 53 of 1983 and judgment and order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Hathras in U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 1 of 1997.

2. Facts in brief are that one Badri Prasad was the original landlord of the house let out to tenant, Mahendra Pal Sharma, in the year 1973 at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. Badri Prasad unfortunately died in the year 1982 and his widow Kasturi Devi and his five sons filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for personal need on the ground that the sons of late Badri Prasad had been married and have children and proceedings for eviction has been initiated by the landlord in respect of the accommodation in which they are living which has been registered as Case No. 15 of 1981. The aforesaid release application was registered as PA Case No. 1983. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application holding that the need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine and the comparative hardship was in favour of the landlord. The suit was decreed on 03.12.1996. Against the said judgment, the tenant, Mahendra Pal Sharma filed a rent appeal which was allowed on 16.10.1999 on the ground that the comparative hardship lies in favour of the defendant and against the landlord. The order of the appellate court was challenged by the landlords through Writ-A No. 8997 of 2000. The appellate court's order was set aside by the judgment dated 06.11.2012 passed by the coordinate Bench and matter was remitted back to the appellate court to decide the appeal afresh giving parties opportunity to lead evidence in the light of the subsequent events/changed circumstances.

3. Post remand by the coordinate Bench, the petitioner-tenant moved an amendment application after eight years on 29.10.2020 for amending the written statement which was allowed. Against the amended written statement, landlord-respondent filed their replication. The appellate court, thereafter, framed the following points of consideration in the light of the subsequent events/changed circumstances which are as under:

"(i) Whether the need of landlord of the disputed residential house is genuine and bonafide after the subsequent events/changed circumstances?

(ii) Whether the comparative hardship is more in favour of petitioner/respondent than the appellant/tenant under the changed circumstances?"

4. While deciding the first point of consideration, appellate court found the need of landlord to be genuine and bonafide after the subsequent events/changed circumstances and also found that the comparative hardship tilted in favour of the landlord rather, the tenant and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 28.07.2025. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that post remand by the writ court, the need of the landlord had completely exhausted as two sons of Kasturi Devi had already died and the other three sons were well settled and were not needing the residential accommodation in question. He further submitted that the appellate court had only reiterated the order passed by the Prescribed Authority without looking to the fact that there was changed circumstances and the requirement was not there for the landlord as per the need set up by them in the year 1983. He further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, Surendra Kumari Sharma, widow of original tenant- Mahendra Pal Sharma had died and the petitioner no. 1/2- Ashok Vala Sharma, who is a widow is living in the accommodation and is an old lady