- (1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. Heard Sri J. N. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Saurabh Lawania has put in appearance on behalf of Smt. Hafsa Mahmood, opposite party No. 3.
(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 20-4- 2004 passed by the Prescribed Authority/civil Judge, Mohanlalganj (Senior Division), Lucknow as also the judgment and order dated 15- 9-2005 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow. THE learned Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts and the application of the landlady for release of House No. 116/153, Ghasiari Mandi, Kaiserbagh, Lucknow, hereafter referred to as the premises, has been allowed. THE order passed by the prescribed authority for release of the premises has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court, District Judge, Lucknow. It emerges from record that Smt. Hafsa Mahmood, opposite party No. 3 moved an application for release of the premises under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act, In this application, it was alleged that the petitioner is a tenant of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. He was inducted in the premises by late Shafaqat Ullah Kirmani. During his life time, a registered Will was executed by Sri Shafaqat Ullah Kirmani on 25-12-1995 in respect of the premises in favour of Smt. Hafsa Mahmood. After the death of Sri Shafaqat Ullah Kirmani, Smt. Hafsa Mahmood became absolute owner of the premises by virtue of the said Will. The record further reveals that a 'letter of administration' in respect of the premises was also obtained, from the Court of the District Judge, Lucknow. The formal 'letter of administration' was issued on 27- 11-2003. The legal heirs of the executant of the said Will raised no objection in respect of the said letter of administration. They had also informed the tenant, petitioner in respect of the aforesaid Will and he was advised to pay the rent to the present landlady. It was demonstrated before the prescribed authority in the release application that the husband of the applicant landlady is an officer in the Indian Railways. He was posted at New Delhi at the relevant time. He was holding a transferable post and could be posted anywhere in India. The landlady is having two children Adeel Mahmood and Km. Amina Mahmood. They were aged about 19 years and 18 years respectively when the release application was filed on 5-2-2004. In the release application, the landlady had indicated that the family of the tenant Sri Javed Jameel consisted of his wife Nahid Javeed, one son and two daughters. Smt. Nahid Javeed, wife of the tenant is an employee of U. P. Power Corporation Limited and was earning a sum of Rs. 19,080/- per month. She was getting a sum of Rs. 1470/- as House Rent Allowance (H. R. A.), whereas the tenant was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- only to the landlady. The landlady had submitted before the prescribed authority that she was in bona fide and genuine need of the premises as she wanted to permanently settle at Lucknow. Her children needed proper education at Lucknow where institutions of higher learning are available in abundance. Because of frequent transfers of her husband in Railway service, the education of the children of the landlady was disturbed. The landlady had laid stress in his release application that there was no other accommodation available to her at Lucknow except the premises in question. It was averred that the wife of the tenant, Smt. Nahid Javeed owns a share in the ancestral house consisting of four rooms alongwith kitchen, latrine, bath-room etc. i. e. House No. 175/105, Peer Jalil, Golaganj, Lucknow, just at a distance of one kilometer from the premises in question. The portion in the share of the wife of the tenant was lying vacant, where he could have comfortably shifted. A notice of demand was also served. The landlady had highlighted her need as bona hard- pressing and genuine in comparison to the need of the tenant.
(3.) THE learned prescribed authority/civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow allowed the application for release and passed a specific order on 20-4-2005 for vacation of the premises. THE learned prescribed authority also observed that a copy of the order passed by it be sent to the U. P. Power Corporation, employer of Smt. Nahid Javeed, wife of the tenant, who was receiving Rs. 1470/- as H. R. A. while living inn the premises in question for meagre rent of Rs. 25/- per month only. Against the aforesaid judgment and order of the prescribed authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Lucknow by writing a 18-page long judgment and order dated 15-9-2005.;