S.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) This is tenant's petition arising from the proceedings for eviction from accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972). The petitioners have lost before both the authorities below.
(2.) The dispute in the petition pertains to a premises comprising of a shop and a residential portion situate in mohalla Rasulpur Town of Nawabganj, District Barabanki. The entire accommodation is with the petitioners at a monthly rent of Rs. 136. The premises in dispute formed part of a bigger house which was the subject-matter of partition Suit No. 60 of 1969 which was decided in the year 1971. As a result of the partition effected in this suit, the premises in question fell to the share of Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4 Surrendra Nath and Triloki Nath. After the partition Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4 had to vacate the other portion of the bigger house which had fallen to the share of the other co-sharer. In view of the partition Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4 requested the petitioners to vacate the premises in question so as to make the same available to them for their occupation but they did not pay need to request. Accordingly the said opposite parties took a house on rent from Smt. Tulsa Devi. The opposite parties alleged that the house was 100 years old and was in a dilapidated condition. They however took the house as they had no accommodation to shift to. Meanwhile they filed Suit No. 60 of 1986 against the petitioners for their eviction from the accommodation in question. The eviction was claimed on the basis of default in payment of rent and inapplicability of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 ; the in-applicability of the Act was claimed on the basis that the premises had been newly constructed. The opposite parties lost in the Trial Court but won in the higher Court. Thereafter there was approach to this Court wherein they again lost. Meanwhile the house of Smt. Tulsa Devi which they had taken on rent fell down dislodging the opposite parties therefrom. At this stage Ramakant one of the brothers of Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4 came to their rescue by allowing one of the accommodation allotted to his share to be occupied by she Opposite Party No. 3 in the specific understanding that he will vacate the said accommodation whenever required. So far as the Opposite Party No. 4 was concerned he was posted at Kanpur and had at his disposal only a single room accommodation there. He had to shift his family from Barabanki to Kanpur and to accommodate in the said single room accommodation Ramakant retired from service and insisted on getting possession of the room which he had allowed Surrendra Nath to occupy. The landlord opposite parties pleaded that on the facts hereinbefore mentioned they required the accommodation in question for their personal use. It was pointed out that in due course of time Opposite Party No. 4 Triloki Nath would retire and he would also settle down at Barabanki. It was also stated that the sons of Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4 had grown up and were not doing anything and were required to be settled in business.
(3.) After pointing out their bona fide requirement in the manner mentioned herein above, Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4 pleaded that the petitioners were rich people and owned several houses, shops, motor garages and ice factory in the District of Barabanki and therefore they will not be prejudiced in case they were evicted from the accommodation in question. It was stated that they had taken on rent a shop adjacent to the premises in question in which business in the name and style of Modern Steel Works had been started. It was averred that the petitioners wanted to take advantage of their money in pressurising the Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4 to sell the accommodation in their favour but the opposite parties did not agree to sell the accommodation as they required the same for their own occupation and they did not possess any other accommodation at Barabanki or elsewhere.;