R.B. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner, who is tenant of premises No. 433B, Sunder Bhawan, Sadar Bazar Jhansi has challenged the order of Fourth Additional District Judge Jhansi dated 15th May 1990 in R.C. Appeal No. 2 of 1986 between Ajai Prakash Pateria and Anr. v. Ram Pass Yadav and Ors..
(2.) NECESSARY facts giving rise to the present petition are that Sri Ajai Prakash Pateria and Sri Vijn Prakash Pateria morel an application under Section 21(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 with the allegation that they are the owner and landlord of the House No. 433 -B, Sunder Bhawan, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi and Ram Dass is tenant of the house at the rate of Rs. 12 50 paise per month Earlier, ihis house was owned by Sri Ram Bahadur Ganga Sahai Mushaddi K>an On 13th November, 1980 this house was purchased by the present landlord by registered sale -deed of the same date The landlord Respondent's case is that they are in the employment in Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd, Jhansi (herein after referred to as 'BHEL') situate in Khailar. They hive not been allotted any house in the residential colony of BHEL. The landlord further stated that at present they are living with their parents in house No. 76A Sadar Bazar, Jhansi. This house, in which landlord's parents are living is owned by Cantonment Board and their parents are only tenant of the house. The landlord has a family of four members. The applicant No. 1, Ajai Prakash Pateria, his wife and five years old daughter and the applicant No. 2 Smt. Vijai Prakash Pateria, who is unmarried. The landlord served a notice on the tenant and the tenant having refused to vacate the premises moved an application before the prescribed authority under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) for the release of the house on the ground of bonafide requirement. The present Petitioner, the tenant of the premises in dispute contested the application and filed written statement contending therein that the need of Respondent/Landlord is not bonafide. The Petitioner tenant's had been living in the house in dispute for the last thirty years. The landlord never applied for allotment of any house in BHEL, even though residential accommodation is provided by BHEL to accommodate their employees. The Respondents have wilfully not applied for the allotment of any house in the residential colony of BHEL for the purposes of digging out a ground for evicting the Petitioner tenant.
(3.) IT was specifically contended in the written statement by the Petitioner tenant that besides the house No. 76A, situate in Sadar ttazar, Jhansi, where the landlord's parents are living. There is another house No. 41, situate in Hazaryana, Jhansi, which is lying vacant and if the Petitioner has any need of the house he could have occupied the said house No. 41 situate in Hazaryana. This house No. 41 situate at Hazaryana consists of six rooms, court yard, latrine and bath room. It was stated In the said written statement that the Petitioner can comfortably accommodate himself in this house. The Petitioner tenant also contended that house No. 76A, where the Petitioner 's parents are residing consists of six rooms and the Petitioner can comfortably live with their parents as they have no other child except the Petitioner and only for two persons, house No. 76 -A, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi, is quite big enough where the Petitioner 's family can also be accommodated.;