Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44162 of 2010 Petitioner :- Latif Khan And Another Respondent :- Aman Ulla Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Tiwari,Ashwani Pandey Respondent Counsel :- A. K. Mishra Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
respondent caveator.
This petition is directed against concurrent orders
dated 22.7.2008 and 11.6.2010 by which both the courts
below have allowed the release application of the
respondent landlord.
The respondent landlord filed release application no.
71 of 2005 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972 inter alia with the allegation that the family of
the landlord consists of 14 persons including married
couples and college going children and were forced to
make do with 7 rooms out of which two were in the
occupation of his brother and there was no place for
studies for the children or for his daughters who were
running coaching classes and also for the chamber of his
lawyer son etc. while the petitioners were tenant in the
adjoining house of the respondent landlord and they have
other accommodation available where they can shift
without any difficulty as they have a very small family.
It was also disclosed that earlier also he had filed a
release application in 1997 which was dismissed but the
circumstances changed, the family increased and the other
building available lies in a dilapidated condition.
The petitioner tenant contested the application
firstly urging that the second release application for
the same need was not maintainable and the landlord has
two other houses no. 50 and 51 which can be utilized for
2
him as he already has 7 rooms etc. and other
accommodation was also available. It was also asserted
that he has no other place to shift and in case the
application is allowed, he will suffer greater hardship.
Both the courts below after considering the evidence
on record and taking into account the earlier release
application, recorded categorical findings of fact that
the looking to the size of the landlord’s family
including the fact that three couples and young girls
needed different rooms, held the need to be genuine and
bona fide and further, apart from the fact that other
accommodation was available to the tenant but yet no
effort made to search out alternative accommodation,
therefore, allowed the application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that
both the courts below have erred in holding that house
nos. 50 and 51 were not available for the use of the
landlord despite the fact that in the earlier proceedings
it was held so.
Both the courts below have taken into consideration
the changed circumstances and after relying upon concrete
evidence including the Commission’s report found that
the house nos. 50 and 51 were not available for use of
the landlord. In fact an offer was made before the trial
court to the petitioner tenant for giving him on rent
either of the two houses no. 50 and 51 in exchange of the
disputed accommodation but neither the petitioners denied
that one was in a dilapidated condition and the other was
used as a garage nor accepted the offer. This finding of
the trial court has not been challenged either during
arguments or in the pleadings of the writ petition.
Therefore, the argument is misconceived and is rejected.
3
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.
Order Date :- 3.8.2010
AK