Court No. 7 Case : WRIT A No. 40341 of 2010 Petitioner : Mohd. Gayyur Respondent : Lala Mangal Sen And Others Petitioner Counsel : Brijesh Chandra Tripathi,Chaman Ara Respondent Counsel : Anurag Pathak,Chandra Bhushan Tiwari Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the
respondent caveator.
This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated
15.3.2004 and 8.6.2010 by which the release application of the
respondent landlord under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972 has been allowed by both the courts below.
The respondent landlord filed a P.A. Case No.30 of 1997 inter
alia with the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of the
disputed premises but the family of the landlord consisted of about
twenty five members and they were finding it very hard to
accommodate in the residential building no.8182 Mohalla Parasnath
in Muzaffarnagar where only ten rooms were available and therefore
one of his sons Devendra Kumar alongwith three sons were staying in
a rented accommodation and therefore the disputed premises was
required for personal need. The petitioner contested the said suit
stating that the landlord had other accommodation available but
both the courts below found that no appropriate residential
accommodation was available to the landlord and therefore allowed
the release application.
It is urged that the respondent landlord had premises no.76
available and therefore the courts below had erred in holding the
need to be genuine and bonafide. Perusal of the record shows that
plot no.76 was only two piece of land where a cow shed has been
2
erected. Further the courts have found that the entire family was
staying in house no.8182 Mohalla Parasnath in Muzaffarnagar and
the only son Devendra Kumar alongwith his three sons had to be
readjusted in the same building. This finding of fact has not been
shown to be perverse.
No other point has been urged.
For the reasons aforesaid, this is not a fit case for interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
After the petition was dismissed, learned counsel for the
petitioner upon instructions of his client, has given an undertaking
to vacate the premises in case a reasonable time is granted to him.
Accordingly, the petitioner shall hand over vacant possession of
the disputed accommodation to the respondent landlord without
creating any third party rights on or before 29.10.2010. He will also
deposit the rent uptill that date within a period of four weeks from
today failing which he would be liable for eviction forthwith.
Order Date : 16.7.2010
PKG/AK