- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Writ petition No.912 of 2010 has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Allahabad in Rent Control Appeal No.7 of 2006 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) and order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.13, Allahabad in P.A. Case No.13 of 1996 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition.
(2.) WRIT Petition No.1956 of 2010 has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Allahabad in Rent Control Appeal Nos.5 of 2006, Mahavir Prasad Vs. Smt. Kusum Singh and others, 6 of 2006, Shyam Lal and others Vs. Smt. Kusum Singh and others and 10 of 2006, Sita Ram Vs. Smt. Kusum Singh and others, (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) and order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.13, Allahabad in P.A. Case No.24 of 1996, P.A. Case No.20 of 1996 and P.A. Case No.22 of 1996 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). Writ Petition No.1867 of 2010 has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Allahabad and order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Court No.13, Allahabad in M.P.A. Case No.39 of 2009, Smt. Kusum Singh and others Vs. Virendra Kumar Kushwaha (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition) and for a writ of mandamus to stay further proceedings. Writ Petition No.2535 of 2010 has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Allahabad in Rent Control Appeal No.9 of 2006 and order dated 19.12.2005 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.13, Allahabad in P.A. Case No.15 of 1996. The aforesaid writ petitions have been preferred by the tenants of shops in building bearing Municipal No.84/137 (New no.137), Tilak Road, Bansmandi, Muththiganj, Allahabad. The aforesaid building is a building consisting of ground floor first floor and second floor in which there were twelve tenants. Out of these, six tenants are the tenants of shops situated on the ground floor and remaining six tenants occupied the residential portion situated on the first floor. Out of six tenants on the ground floor four of them are the tenants of shops and two are tenants of Chabutara over the drain.
(3.) THE landlord initially filed a release application under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 against all the 12 tenants on the ground that the building was a very old construction and in a dilapidated condition having been constructed prior to year 1892; that the families of the applicants-landlord were residing on part of the first floor and second of the same building, but due to its dilapidated condition they were compelled by the circumstances to vacate the portions in their occupation; that at present the family members of the landlords are living in tenanted accommodations in Kydganj and Allahpur localities of Allahabad; that intention of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction of the building was genuine and their need is also established from the record as most of the part of the building has already collapsed; that as a result thereof 6 tenants, who were residing on the first floor i.e. the residential portion, have vacated the same during the pendency of the release application before the Prescribed Authority, but the landlord could not reconstruct the shops of the building as the ground floor is still under the occupation of the tenants preventing reconstruction by the present petitioners as it cannot be reconstructed without being demolished. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and hearing the parties, the release application under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the Act was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 19.12.2003. It is averred in paragraph 13 of the release application as well as in the writ petition that the landlord made an offer to the tenants that after reconstruction of the building he will provide shops to them, but this offer has been rejected by the tenants in paragraph 13 of their written statement before the courts below as well as in the counter affidavit to the writ petition. The release application under Section 21(1)(b) of the said Act remained pending for about 9 years and during this period the circumstances of the family of the landlord changed. An amendment application was, therefore, moved on 10.01.2005 by the landlord to incorporate the plea of bona fide need under Section 21(1)(a) in respect of the sons of the applicants as well as other co-landlords on the ground of changed circumstances and subsequent developments in their families during the pendency of the release application. It is claimed that the sons of the landlords have become major who were not good in the studies; that one Sushant Singh son of one of the landlords who was doing business of brick kiln had to close it down due to loss incurred in that business.;