R.P.Singh J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Azamgarh dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the prescribed Authority allowing the application of the landlord in proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly, are that the petitioner is a tenant of the accommodation in dispute situate in Mohalla Kurmi Tola in the city of Azamgarh of which respondent no. 3 is the landlord. Respondent no. 3 moved an application for eviction of the petitioner in proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that the accommodation in his possession to accommodate the members of his family is wholly inadequate on account of the increase in the number of the members of family and further that the relations between his wife and daughter-in-law are very strained and differences have arisen disturbing the mental peace bf his family members on account of which it has become necessary for him to provide a separate accommodation to his son and daughter-in-law and other family members and hence the need for the disputed accommondation in possession of the petitioner is bona fide and genuine and greater hardship would be caused if the accommodation is not released in his favour. It was further pleaded by the landlord that the husband of the petitioner has already- built another residential building in the same city and hence the petitioner can easily shift to the new house built by her husband as such the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise any objection to the landlord's application for release. THE application moved by the landlord was contested by the petitioner on the gound that the need of the landlord is not bona fide or genuine and that she is living in the accommodation in dispute since long. It was also contended that her relations with her husband are strained and hence they have not been living together and she cannot live in the house built by her husband and further that greater hardship would be caused if she is evicted from the accommodation in dispute. Heard Sri Prabodh Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Dayal, Senior Advocate, for the respondent-land lord. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the need of the landlord respondent no. 3 is not bona fide and genuine and that there is sufficient accommodation in possession of the landlord to accommodate his family members. Secondly, it was contended that the relations between the petitioner and her husband are strained and hence the petitioner is not living with her husband and cannot shift to the newly constructed house of her husband and hence Explanation (i) to section 21 (1) of the Act is not applicable in the present case and respondents no. I and 2 have wrongly held that Explanation (i) to section 21 (1) is applicable in the present case and on this ground has not examined the comparative hardship that may be caused to the petitioner as a result of her eviction from the disputed accommodation
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that respondents no. 1 and 2, on appraisal of the evidence on record, have recorded a finding that the need of the landlord for the disputed accommodation is bona fide and genuine and it not not open to the petitioner to challenge this finding on the question of bona fide need of the parties in writ jurisdiction specially when the same has been reached after appraisal of the evidence on record. LEARNED counsel further contended that since the husband of the petitioner has admittedly built another accommodation in the same city and respondents no. 1 and 2 have disbelieved the case of the tenant that her relations with her husband are strained and hence the husband and wife would be deemed, under the law, to be normally residing together and as such Explanation (i) to section 21 (1) of the Act is applicable in the present case. As regards first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the question of bona fide need of the landlord for the disputed accommodation, on perusal of the orders passed by respondents no. 1 and 2, I find that they have appraised the evidence on record in arriving at the conclusion that the need of the landlord for the disputed accommodation is bona fide and genuine. It has been clearly set out by the landlord in his application moved before the Prescribed Authority, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 'I' to the writ petition, that now total number of the members of his family has increased to 20 and hence the accommodation in his possession to accommodate 20 members in his family is wholly indequate and hence his need for additional accommodation is pressing and bona fide. It has also been clearly stated in his application that the relations between his wife, and his daughter-in-law are strained and hence the mental peace of the members of his family are very much disturbed and it has become necessary for him to provide a separate accommodation to his son and daughter-in-law in order to maintain peace in the family. Respondents no. 1 and 2 both have applied their mind to the evidence led by the landlord respondent no. 3 on the question of his bona fide need for additional accommodation and after appraisal of the evidence on record have held that the need of the landlord for the accommodation in dispute is bona fide and genuine. In the case of Dr. J. D. Tiwari v. II Addl. District Judge, Allahabad reported in 1982 (1) ARC 81, it was obserbed by Honourable R. M. Sahai, J. as follows :- "Strained relations between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law and between wives of brother is not anunusual feature of our society. Where differences arise, the mental peace of male members is disturbed, cannot be disputed. It, therefore, may furnish a reasonable ground for allowing an application for release of an independent accommodation. The landlord may not have the luxury of selecting accommodation but inability to live with brother's family due to differences between brother's wife and mother-in-law and daughter-in-law is certainly a ground on which he may seek eviction of his own house occupied by a tenant." ;