- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned appellate order, dated 27-3-1995. I have heard Shri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and find no merit in this petition.
(2.) THE respondents filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 against the petitioner which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the appeal against the said order has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 27-3-1995, Aggrieved this petition has been filed in this Court. The findings of fact recorded by the court below are that the respondent No. 3 is a widow whose husband Sardar Tarjeet Singh was employed in a private Construction Company in Gaya (Bihar) and was living there with his family. After his death the need of his legal heirs (respondents) for accommodation increased many times as it has not been established that Sardar Tarjeet Singh was having his own house in Gaya. There was thus, genuine justifica tion for the respondents to shift in their own house in Kanpur where their relations live and also to give thorn security. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the version of the respondent No. 3 that she was living in a tenanted house in Kanpur at the rate of Rs. 700 per month could not be believed because of the conflicting evidence on this point. However, a perusal of the petitioner's own application under Section 34 of the Act, true copy of which is Annexure 26 of this petition shows that the petitioner himself has stated that the respondent No. 3 is living in house No. 122/230, Sarojni Nagar, Kanpur. Thus, the petitioner himself has admitted that the respondent No. 3 is living in Kanpur and not at Gaya.
(3.) IN my opinion, a person has a right to live in his own house and he cannot be compelled to live in a tenanted house. Whenever an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act is filed and it is found that the landlord is himself living in a tenanted house then in my opinion ordinarily such applica tion should be allowed because no landlord should be compelled to live in a tenanted house if he has his own house where he wants to shift the need of the landlord in such cases should be held to be genuine. The courts below have recorded findings of fact that the need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine and is greater than that of the tenant. These are findings of fact and I cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction as held by the Supreme Court in Munni Devi v. Addl. District Judge, AIR 1978 SC 29. The writ petition is consequently dismissed.;