- (1.) This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari may be issued quashing the impugned judgment dated 05.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No. 58 of 2007 Smt. Radha Rani Mehrotra and Ors. v. Kailash Nath Mahendru as well as impugned judgment dated 12.11.2007 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow in P.A. Case No. 39 of 1994 Kailash Nath Mahendru v. Smt. Radha Rani Mehrotra and Ors. contained as Annexures Nos. 1 & 2 to the writ petition.
(2.) The brief facts, giving rise to this petition, are that the applicant Kailash Nath Mahendru moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 with the prayer that the premises in question may be released in favour of the applicant after evicting the opposite parties on the ground that he is the owner/landlord of house No. 324/56, Katari Tola, Chowk, Lucknow. Late Sri Gopal Narain Mehrotra, the father of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6 and the husband of opposite party No. 1 was the tenant of a portion in the said premises on the ground floor comprising of two rooms, three KOTHARIES and one varandah with common amenities of latrine and bath-room on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. Sri Gopal Narain Mehrotra died, leaving behind the opposite parties as heirs and legal representatives, who inherited the tenancy rights jointly. One of the sisters of the applicant, neglected by her husband, is residing with him along with her two school going sons. The applicant's mother is aged about 80 years and a servant has been engaged to look after her. The applicant has four sisters and other relatives. They often visit his house and live with him. He has only two rooms on the ground floor with common amenities. The first floor of the house has fallen down. He has to accommodate self, wife, mother, Indu Bala Kapoor (sister), Sonu & Monu (sons of Indu Bala Kapoor) and servant in the said two rooms. The opposite parties are in possession of their own accommodation in Rajajipuram Colony since 1980, but, they are not vacating the premises in question just to harass the applicant and to pressurize him to fulfill the unjustified demand of Rs. 50,000/-. The opposite parties can shift in their two houses at Rajajipuram, Lucknow and they would not face any hardship, if they are ordered to vacate the said premises. The accommodation in question is required for the use of the applicant and his family members.
(3.) The opposite parties Nos. 2 & 3, namely, Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra and Sri Sunil Kumar Mehrotra have filed their written statement on 10.07.2002 and have admitted that their father late Sri Gopal Narain Mehrotra was the tenant in accommodation in question and its monthly rent was Rs. 25/- initially, but, has denied the other allegations. Their version is that the applicant's mother has expired 5/6 years back and there is no servant in the house of the applicant. Their father was the tenant in the ground floor of house No. 324/56, Katra Tola, Chowk, Lucknow on monthly rent of Rs. 25/- for the last about 40-45 years, which comprises two rooms, three KOTHARIES, one varandah and common latrine and bath room. The house being old, one room, three KOTHARIES and the roof of boundary fell down. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 80/- P.M., but, no repairing was got done in the tenanted accommodation by the applicant. The opposite parties have one room at present to meet out their residential needs. They have constructed latrine and bath room on the vacant land lying in front of the house. The said house belongs to trust and the applicant is not the owner of the said house. He can only look after the said house. Thus, the opposite parties are not the tenants of the applicant and they are the tenants of the trust. The married sisters of the applicant are residing at their in-laws house happily. Three rooms, roof of second floor, latrine and bath room in the first floor and a BAITHAK, a big room, a KOTHARI, latrine and bath-room in the ground floor are in possession of the applicant. The kitchen and open land are also in his possession. The married sisters and the servant do not come within the purview of family as provided in U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Thus, the applicants family consists of self and his wife Smt. Pushpa Mahendru. Km. Sunita, aged about 30 years, the unmarried daughter of the opposite party No. 1 is also residing with the opposite parties. The one room and kitchen are insufficient to meet out the residential needs of the opposite parties. Whereas, the applicant has more accommodation in his possession than required. The P.A. Case No. 39 of 1984, filed by the applicant earlier, was dismissed on 12.02.1995 by IV Additional Civil Judge. The applicant is not in need of the accommodation in question. There is no house in possession of the opposite parties at Rajajipuram Colony, Lucknow. No other house is available at Lucknow to meet out the residential needs of the opposite parties. The need of the opposite parties for the accommodation in question is greater than the need of the applicant.;