Court No. - 7 Case :- Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46393 of 2010 Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Rawat Respondent :- Rangile & others Petitioner Counsel :- Mustaqeem Ahmad Respondent Counsel :- K.K. Tripathi Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
respondent caveator.
This petition by the tenants is directed against
concurrent orders dated 7.7.2006 and 5.7.2010 by which both
the courts below have allowed the release application of the
respondent landlord.
It appears that the respondent landlord along with his
wife filed a release application no. 21 of 2004 under Section
21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act) for the release of the disputed accommodation on
the ground that the premises in their occupation was very
meagre and a family about 13 people they had to accommodate
themselves in three rooms and therefore, it was required for
their personal need. The tenant contested the said
application on the ground that the landlord had other
premises available and they were living comfortably in their
house. Both the courts below after considering all the facts
have recorded a categorical finding of fact that there was no
genuine bona fide need and comparative hardship.
It is urged that since the application was filed within
3 years of the purchase by the landlord, the application was
incompetent and further the landlord had purchased a large
piece of vacant land, therefore, he could make arrangements
for his accommodation.
Both these arguments were considered by the courts below
and they have recorded categorical findings of fact that
though the purchase was made in 2001, the release application
was filed in 2004 after giving six months notice to the
tenant. The courts have also gone on to hold that the
2
application was entertained after expiry of three years. The
courts have also found that the tenant cannot dictate terms
to the landlord. The courts have found that the landlord has
a family of about 13 persons and they have to manage in only
three rooms and therefore, have rightly held the need to be
genuine and bona fide.
For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Rejected.
After the order had been dictated, learned counsel for
the petitioner, upon instruction of his client, has stated
that some reasonable time may be granted by which he will
handover the peaceful vacant possession without creating any
third party rights to the respondent landlord and also pay
rent till that period.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to handover
peaceful vacant possession to the respondent landlord on or
before 30.10.2010 without creating any third party rights. He
will also deposit rent uptill that date within a period of
four weeks. In case of default of deposit of rent, he shall
be liable for eviction forthwith.
Order Date :- 6.8.2010
AK
