Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1163 (ALL)

Mewa Ram v. Phoolmati

2010-04-08

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J. After hearing Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed in the open Court. It has been brought to my notice that the order has been uploaded inadvertently due to wrong pressing of the Button by the concerned Private Secretary. In view of that corrected order is reproduced below. 2. Through this writ petition the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned order dated 4-9-1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No.61 of 1992 and order dated 22-08-2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 178 of 1997, Mewa Ram Vs. Phoolmati. 3. The facts giving rise to the present case are that the landlord respondent No.1 (now deceased) had filed an application for release in the year 1992 on the ground that the disputed accommodation including entire building is in dilapidated condition and it requires demolition and reconstruction for own use. The application was filed under Section 21 (1)(a) and Section 21 (1) (b) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In the release application, the need was set for 19 members of the family. The tenant-petitioner filed a reply denying the allegations made in the release application stating therein that the building is not in dilapidated condition. Further the number of family members are not such as mentioned in the release application. Further the petitioner/opposite parties had no government accommodation and it will be very difficult to find out any other accommodation for living in Kanpur Nagar as the rent is very high. Thereafter, the parties have lead their evidence before the Prescribed Authority. An Advocate Commissioner was also appointed for the inspection of the spot for ascertaining condition of the disputed accommodation. The Prescribed Authority after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into the material available on record, has recorded finding that disputed accommodation is in dilapidated condition and it requires demolition. The bonafide need and comparative hardship of the landlord was also found pressing and genuine by the Prescribed Authority. Consequently, the release application of the respondents/landlord was allowed by the learned Prescribed Authority on 4-9-1997 with the direction to the petitioner to hand over the possession to the landlord within a month. 4. The bonafide need and comparative hardship of the landlord was also found pressing and genuine by the Prescribed Authority. Consequently, the release application of the respondents/landlord was allowed by the learned Prescribed Authority on 4-9-1997 with the direction to the petitioner to hand over the possession to the landlord within a month. 4. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed an Appeal which was numbered as Appeal No. 178 of 1997, Mewa Ram Vs. Smt. Poolmati and others. The Appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Kanpur Nagar and the same was dismissed on 22-8-2009. 5. Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing these orders has submitted that the court below has not considered the compliance of Rule 16 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). He has also tried to assail the finding recorded by the court below with regard to the bonafide need and comparative hardship but has not been able to show any material placed by the parties on record, either has not been considered or misread. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the courts below with regard to the bonafide need and comparative hardship, particularly, in the circumstances when the Appellate Authority has recorded that the petitioner's one son is living with seven adult members in one room and another son- Chhota is living with 8 members in Khaprail-Shade and the petitioner's one divorced daughter is living in tin-shade along with two children. The petitioner's grandsons have become adult and they are to be married. There is no Guest room, study room , kitchen and store room. The entire family is living like on railway platform whereas the petitioner has now retired and is living on rent of Rs. 125/- per month along with four family members and during this period he had not tried to find out any other accommodation. 6. So far as the finding recorded with the regard to dilapidated condition of the disputed accommodation and the financial capacity of the landlord with respect to reconstruction is concerned that has also been dealt by the appellate court in detail which is based on Engineer's report and report of the Commissioner. 6. So far as the finding recorded with the regard to dilapidated condition of the disputed accommodation and the financial capacity of the landlord with respect to reconstruction is concerned that has also been dealt by the appellate court in detail which is based on Engineer's report and report of the Commissioner. With respect to financial capacity to reconstruct the building, the petitioner himself has admitted in reply to release application that the financial status of landlord is very sound. 7. In view of that I do not find any perversity in the finding recorded with respect to dilapidated condition of the house and financial capacity to reconstruct the building after demolition. 8. So far as the submissions of Sri Tripathi with regard to the compliance of Rule 16 of the Rules is concerned, the Appellate Court has very elaborately considered this aspect of the matter. Nothing has been pointed out before this Court that what has been pressed in this regard and has not been considered. In view of that I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of facts recorded by the courts below with respect to the dilapidated condition of house, bona fide need and comparative hardship. 9. The writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. 10. In the last, Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at least one year time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the disputed accommodation. 11. Considering the facts of the case, it is provided that in case the petitioner files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within a period of four months from today that the petitioner shall vacate the disputed premises by 7th of July, 2010, his eviction shall remain stayed till 7-7-2010. In case he does not file any undertaking as indicated above, the respondents are free to proceed in accordance with law.