AKHTAR HUSAIN Vs. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2000-2-222
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 01,2000

AKHTAR HUSAIN Appellant
VERSUS
Viiith Additional District Judge, Moradabad And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Jagdish Chandra Mishra, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.4.1987 passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Moradabad allowing the appeal setting aside the order dated 16.8.1983 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Moradabad and allowing the application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the premises in question. The respondent No. 3 Smt. Krishna Devi Agarwal filed an application under Section 21 of the Act for release on the ground that she is residing in a small room along with her husband and four children and the accommodation is insufficient to meet her requirement. The defendant petitioner has sub -let the premises in suit and resides in Mohalla Varbalan by constructing a new house.
(2.) THE learned Prescribed Authority after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence held that the land lady could not prove that she was in bona fide need of the premises in question. He further held that the tenant along with his family members resides in the premises in suit. He further held that even if the tenant had inducted some third person it may not constitute a ground for release. With these findings he dismissed the application. The appellate court reversed the judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appellate court without recording any finding committed error in reversing the order. He contended that the appellate court committed error in not recording any finding whether the premises is in dispute is bona fidely required by the landlady. I find force in this contention. The appellate court was swayed by the consideration that since one of the sons, though from first wife, had built a house the objection filed by the tenant could not be considered and the landlady was entitled to release.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though son from the first wife was member of the family of the tenant but it could not be proved by the tenant that the prior to construction of the house the said son was ordinarily residing with the tenant or was dependent on him.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.