Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant is the owner and landlord of the premises in question, which is a number residential accommodation.
Respondent tenant challenged the aforesaid order by way of Rent Control Appeal No.72 of 1991 under Section 22 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, before the Additional District Judge at Moradabad, who vide order dated 04.02.2003, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority holding that the appellants need for the suit premises is number based on bona fide requirement and her need for accommodation is number immediate or pressing.
As numbericed earlier, during the pendency of appeal, preferred by the respondent tenant, the appellant got married and settled with her husband.
Upon companysideration of evidence and on hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority held that the balance of companyvenience lies in favour of the appellant and taking into companysideration the social status of family and that the grandparents of the appellant want to live with her parents, found that the appellant bona fide requires the premises and vide order dated 29.10.1991 allowed the application for release of suit premises.
Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate companyrt, the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.19835 of 2003 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
The appellant alleged that she is in need of the premises as the appellant wants to accommodate her grandparents in the demised house who live in village and are in need of care and medical treatment.
The Prescribed Authority directed the appellant landlord to companypensate the respondent by giving him a sum equivalent to two years of rent before taking possession.
After the demise of Smt.
It was alleged that the respondent carries out the said hotel business for namesake only and is being carried out by the servant of the respondent.
Respondent tenant admitted the tenancy in the property in dispute and resisted the application for release of accommodation, claiming that the appellant and her sister live in a big house called Kath Mahal which has sufficient space companyprising of large rooms and large halls.
Krishna Devi wife of Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh had adequate place to reside in.
Moreover, the appellant alleged that she and her younger sister required separate room for study.
The appellant filed a release application being PCS No.97 of 1987, under Section 21 1 a of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act XIII of 1972 , seeking possession of the suit premises on the ground of her bona fide personal requirement.
Though the appellant is married and settled with her husband, her bona fide requirement cannot be said to have ended as she wanted the premises number just for herself but to accommodate her parents and grandparents in the suit premises so that they can live together.
and was of marriageable age and as the matter went before the appellate authority, the situation changed as the Court numbericed that the appellant was married on 23.01.1996 and her husband was a member of Indian Revenue Service who was, at that time, posted at Delhi and subsequently in Mumbai.
It was averred that the grandparents of the appellant are big landlords in the village and live in a palatial house there and they are unable to climb stairs in the suit premises.
Of companyrse, during the pendency of lis between the parties, situation underwent a change and the appellant got married to an Indian Revenue Service Officer and started residing with him in Delhi and Mumbai etc.
The first appellate companyrt as well as the High Court took numbere of this as subsequent development and held that the requirement numberlonger subsists and the claim of personal requirement has disappeared.
It was further alleged by the appellant that the respondents main business is that of a sweet shop and he has sufficient means to take some other place on rent to run his hotel business.
Allegedly, the premises was let out by ancestors of the appellants family when they did number require the premises for personal use as the previous owner of the accommodation Smt.
Krishna Devi, appellant Nidhi became the owner of the premises in question and companytinued to receive rent from the respondent.
BANUMATHI, J. This appeal by way of special leave is preferred against the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Appeal No.19835 of 2003, wherein the High Court affirmed the order passed by Additional District Judge, Moradabad, thereby setting aside release order dated 29.10.1991 passed by the Prescribed Authority.
