Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1215 (ALL)

Kaisar Jahan v. Sayyad Raisul Hasan

2016-04-04

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. This petition is against the concurrent finding of two Court below in allowing the release application for the bona fide need of the landlord. The release application was filed against the petitioner Smt. Kaisar Jahan in the year 2005. The specific case pleaded in paragraph 2 of the release application was that the opposite party namely Smt. Kaisar Jahan was the tenant and the suit property was under her occupation and she along with her family was residing at the first floor of the house in question comprising of one room, bathroom, latrine, one kitchen and open courtyard on a rent of Rs. 10/- per month. 3. In the written statement filed by the petitioner Smt. Kaisar Jahan on 12.2.2007, the contents of paragraph 2 of the release application are admitted. Only this much is stated in paragraph 2 of the written statement while disputing the assertion of the paragraph 2 of the release application that one bathroom is also situated and included in the tenanted accommodation of the opposite party which was wrongly not shown in the release application filed by the applicant-landlord. 4. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, only submission of learned Senior Advocate Shri Dhruva Narayana is that this Smt. Kaisar Jahan along with her brothers and sisters inherited the suit property from their father namely late Fazl-Ur-Rahman who was the original tenant of the first floor of the house in question. This fact is demonstrated from the notice dated 18.8.1992 sent in the name of all the heirs of the original tenant. He placed reliance upon the copy of the notice dated 18.8.1992 which is appended as annexure 1' to the supplementary affidavit filed today. 5. It is admitted to the learned counsel for the petitioner that this objection was not taken before the Prescribed Authority and for the first time in appeal, the petitioner sought to plead that other co-tenants have not been impleaded. 6. From a perusal of paragraph 2 of the release application and the written statement, it is apparent that the petitioner was residing in the suit property with her family members at the time of filing of the release application and this specific contention of the landlord was admitted to her. 6. From a perusal of paragraph 2 of the release application and the written statement, it is apparent that the petitioner was residing in the suit property with her family members at the time of filing of the release application and this specific contention of the landlord was admitted to her. At no point of time she claimed that other heirs of the original tenant were also living in the disputed residential accommodation. 7. The 'tenant' has been defined in Section 3(a) (1) & (2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It states that upon death of the original tenant, the tenancy in relation to a residential building would devolve upon his heirs who were normally residing with the original tenant in the building at the time of his death. 8. There is no assertion in the present case that other heirs were living in the residential accommodation. The notice issued on 18.8.1992 is not sufficient to dispute the specific assertion made by the landlord in the release application filed in the year 2005 that the petitioner was living in the disputed accommodation at the time of filing of the release application. 9. This apart learned counsel for the respondents brought on record a certified copy of the order dated 7.8.2013 whereby the impleadment application filed by other heirs of the original tenant was rejected. 10. No other point has been pressed. 11. In view of the above discussion, no infirmity is found in the order of release application passed by the Prescribed Authority affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 12. Lastly learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be granted a reasonable time to vacate the house in question so that he may arrange an alternative accommodation. 13. To this submission, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. 14. In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed with the following directions: - (1) The petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Court below within a period of six weeks along with certified copy of this order that he shall vacate the premises in question on or before 15.10.2016. (2) In case, the petitioner fails to furnish the undertaking or vacate the house in question within the time provided above, proceedings for his eviction may be initiated in accordance with law. 15. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.