At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. SINGH
For the Petitioner: Samir Garg and Some Narayan Mishra, Advocates. For the Respondent: Rahul Chatruvedi and Shamim Ahmad, Advocates.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shamim Ahmad for the respondent.
This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 12.4.2005 and 18.4.2006 by which the release application under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972 of the respondent-landlord has been allowed and the petitioner has been asked to vacate the premises by both the courts below.
The respondent-landlord filed an application under section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for releasing the disputed accommodation on the ground of her Bonafide need. Inter-alia the allegations were that she had purchased the disputed house from erstwhile owner on 24.5.2000 and since the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of a portion of the house, therefore filed suit no.592 of 2001 for eviction of the petitioner and in that suit the petitioner raised his defence that he was a bonafide tenant of the disputed accommodation and therefore, without any prejudice to his right, she was forced to file the present suit for his eviction and for the need of his family members consisting of herself, her husband, her two grown up sons and a daughter. They are in occupation of one store situated on the ground floor, one room situated on the first floor apart from bath room etc. which was not sufficient for her family members. The petitioner tenant opposed the said application on the ground that neither the need of the respondent was bonafide nor they would suffer any hardship in case the application is rejected.
After the parties had led their evidence, both the courts below allowed the application and directed eviction of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the application under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not maintainable as the respondent had earlier filed a suit claiming that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant.
It is apparent from the record that the respondent-landlord had earlier filed suit no. 592 of 2001 for eviction of the petitioner on the basis that he had unauthorizedly occupied a part of the property and in that suit the petitioner had raised a defence that he was a tenant of the entire property. Thus, the respondent-landlord filed the present release application wherein in paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 she has clearly stated that the petitioner was a tenant of a portion of the said building which has been admitted by the petitioner in his written statement. It needs no reiteration that the question of relationship of landlord and tenant has to be decided on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Landlord has pleaded that the petitioner was a tenant which has been admitted by him and therefore, the argument cannot be accepted. In fact, both the courts below have dealt with this issue at length and have recorded findings which can neither be said to be perverse or unreasonable.
It is then urged that the courts below have not considered the bonafide need of the landlord.
This argument is also misplaced. A bare perusal of the two judgements would show that the accommodation with the landlord was very meagre while the number of family members was large and the petitioner-tenant had failed to prove that the two sons of the respondent-landlord were living outside and working. The courts below have considered the evidence on record and held that the respondent-landlord was in bonafide need of the disputed accommodation and which finding has not been shown to be perverse.
Lastly, it is urged that none of the courts below have considered the offer made by the petitioner to exchange both the accommodations in possession of the parties in case it satisfied the need of the landlord.
The offer made, if any, does not appear to be bonafide. Even otherwise, the courts below have found that the family of the landlord consisted of the husband, wife, two grown up sons and a daughter and therefore, in the opinion of the court, there was no question of accepting the exchange of accommodation as even that would not have satisfied the need of the landlord.
No other point has been urged.
For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
br />However, in case the petitioner gives an undertaking within three weeks from today before the trial court that he would vacate the premises and handover peaceful possession to the landlord within six months from today, his eviction shall remain stayed for six months from today. The petitioner shall also deposit the entire rent and mesne profit etc. within three weeks from today. In case of failure to comply with any of the conditions, the order shall automatically stand discharged.