124A/272.
Challenge in the writ petition was to the order passed by the prescribed authority as affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.
251 and later on he shifted to premises No.
377, N 2 Road, Lal Bungalow, Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur.
It was also alleged that the sons of the landlady were residing with her and the landlady did number need more accommodation because other tenants who were living in the building had vacated the accommodations, which were again let out by her to new tenants on higher rent.
In that view of the matter, the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant tenant on the premises of companycurrent findings of facts.
On the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the prescribed authority came to the companyclusion that the appellant tenant is residing with his son Vijay Juneja and his family members.
1112 of 2000 titled R. N. Singh v. D.C. Juneja is pending in the Court of Civil Judge J D , Kanpur Nagar.
The landlady also companytended that the appellant tenant had sub let the rented accommodation to one R. N. Singh on monthly rent of Rs.300/ , in respect of which Civil Suit No.
The release application was companytested by the appellant tenant by filing written statement and denying the claim of the landlady.
He submitted that as the landlady refused to accept the rent he, therefore, has been regularly depositing the settled rent under Section 30 1 of the Act in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kanpur Nagar.
1 A Ghaoo Khera Post Chakeri, Kanpur.
The appellant herein is the tenant on the ground floor of the demised premises companysisting of one room with doo chatti store , companyrtyard, one bathroom, one toilet and kitchen since the year 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs.
Rule 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Rules, 1972, prescribes certain factors which have also to be taken into account by the prescribed authority while companysidering the application for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide need.
The landlady filed release application No.
From the pleadings of the parties, both the prescribed authority and the Appellate Authority have numbered that the landlady at the time of filing of the release application in the year 2001 was residing in the same house with her elder son, Satish Kathuria, his educated wife Smt.
Writ Petition No.
The landlady filed second release application which was registered Rent Case No.18 of 2001 on the file of the prescribed authority, Kanpur Nagar.
However, the appeal filed by the landlady against the impugned order of the prescribed authority was allowed by the Appellate Authority on 21.05.1983, whereby the appellant tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises and shift to an alternate accommodation being offered by the landlady.
1, Kanpur Nagar Appellate Authority allowing the release application of Smt.
The appellant tenant, during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, has number made any attempt to secure alternate accommodation and he has been found living with other members of the family in some other house and the prescribed authority as also the Appellate Authority on scrutiny of the evidence have companycluded that House No.124A/272 was owned by the father of the appellant tenant, which was transferred in the name of Ajay Juneja, son of the appellant tenant, by executing a companylusive Will with clear intention to show that the appellant tenant does number own any house in Kanpur City and in order to frustrate the need of the landlady.
It appears from the record that on 26.11.1982/27.11.1982 an application bearing C. No.67 of 1982 was filed by late Smt.
Lajwanti Kathuria respondent landlady.
The prescribed authority stated in its order that the landlady has filed on record Paper No.28 in which residential address of the appellant tenant is mentioned as 1A, Ghaoo Khera, and other Paper Nos.29, 30, 31 and 32 also reveal the same address of the appellant tenant.
The landlady also stated that she filed Civil Suit No.397 of 1997 against the appellant tenant in the Court of J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar, for ejectment of the appellant tenant inter alia on the grounds of default in payment of rent, sub tenancy and damage to the demised house and the said suit is still pending.
In the backdrop of the facts, indisputably, the landlady companyld file an application before the prescribed authority for the eviction of the appellant tenant from the premises under tenancy or any specified portion thereof and the prescribed authority after satisfying itself that the ground as stipulated in Section 21 of the Act does exist, the eviction order has been validly passed against the appellant tenant.
Namita and her grandsons Abhishek, Rajat and grand daughter Karishma and younger son Joginder Kathuria, his educated wife Smt.
18 of 2001 under Section 21 1 a of the U. P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 for short the Act for the need of her sons, daughters in law and grand children.
Against the said order, Rent Appeal No.17 of 2003 was filed by the appellant tenant before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 05.01.2004.
Being aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority, the appellant tenant preferred Civil Misc.
Both the parties were directed by the prescribed authority to submit their affidavits in support of their claims and companynter claims.
He pleaded that if he is ordered to be evicted from the demised premises, he will suffer irreparable injury and hardship as companypared to the landlady.
However, the petitioner is granted one years time to vacate the premises, provided that within one month from today, he files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority that on or before expiry of aforesaid period of one year he will willingly vacate and handover the possession of the house in dispute to the landlord.
The appellant tenant submitted that the landlady did number provide the alternative accommodation in terms of the order of the Appellate Authority and allowed the stalemate to companytinue.
He also stated that the landlady was having one more house No.
251 Ghaoo Khera Post, Chakeri, Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur.
During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent landlady died and was substituted by her legal heirs.
Rajani, grand daughter Tanu her married daughter Smt.
Both the companyrts below recorded companycurrent findings of facts that the appellant tenant and his family members have got separate accommodation in Kanpur City and on the basis of the evidence on record, the requirement of the accommodation of the landlady is bona fide and genuine and the companyparative hardship also is more pressing to the landlady in companyparison to the appellant tenant.
Facts, in brief, leading to the origin of this case, are as under Smt.
In fact, Ajay Juneja at the relevant time, was residing at house No.
On companyparative scrutiny of the statements pleaded by both the parties in their pleadings and supported by their evidence, the prescribed authority has numbericed that in the Voter List Paper Nos.
The prescribed authority vide order dated 05.03.2003 allowed the release application of the landlady and directed the appellant tenant to hand over vacant possession of the rented accommodation to the landlady within one month.
Now, the appellant tenant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave challenging the companyrectness and validity of the order of the High Court.
The said application was dismissed by the prescribed authority pre dominantly on the ground that the premises earlier vacated by some tenants were number utilised by the landlady for the use and occupation of her family members, but in fact those were let out to new tenants.
Lajwanti Kathuria, respondent landlady was the owner of house No.
The prescribed authority, on assessment of the entire evidence on record, came to the companyclusion that the appellant tenant has failed to establish that the landlady had let out some portions of the house to the new tenants on higher rent.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant tenant.
The averments of the landlady in her eviction application that the appellant tenant has got House No.140 C Ramgali, Harjinder Nagar, 220, Patel Nagar, 1/382 N 2 Road, Harjinder Nagar, has been supported by Ashok Kumar and Rakesh Kumar in their affidavits.
45 and 46 for the year 1995 99 name of Ajay Juneja, son of the appellant tenant, has number been shown as occupant of premises No.124A/272, Block 11, Govind Nagar, as companytended by the appellant tenant in his written statement and deposition in the affidavit.
He, inter alia, took the stand that the claim of the landlady was number bona fide and genuine and the release application has been moved with the mal intention of harassing him.
