R. P. Singh, J. - (1.) -
(2.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, dated 20-5-1987, dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Kanpur dated 12-5-1986 in proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 Smt. Vandana Tandon filed an application for the release of the accommodation of premises no. 10/436-A, Khalasi Lines, Kanpur which was let out to Indian Explosives Ltd. Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the I. E. L.) and was in occupation of its officer, P. S. Nayar, the husband of the petitioner, who expired in August 1982. The I. E. L. however, continued to retain the house in its tenancy and the same remained to be occupied by the petitioner after the death of her husband. The case of the landlady, respondent no. 1, is that her mother Smt. Saroj Bhalla was the owner of the accommodation in dispute which had been let out to I. E. L. initially on 7th July, 1974, for a period of three years and then subsequently renewed for three successive period on the same terms and conditions to the I. E. L. except some variation in rent from 7-7-1977 to 6-7-1980 and then from 7-7-1980 to 6-7-1983 and lastly from 7-7-1983 to 6-7-1987. The I. E. L. had taken the aforesaid accommodation for the residence of its officer Sri P. S. Nayar, husband of the petitioner, who later died on 25th August, 1982, but the I. E. L. retained the accommodation in dispute in its tenancy for the occupation of its officers, and even after the death of Sri P. S. Nayar, the petitioner who is widow of Sri P. S. Nayar continued to remain in occupation of the same, Smt. Saroj Bhalla, however, died on 7-10-1984 leaving behind the accommodation in dispute to her heirs including Smt. Vandana Tandon, respondent no. 1, who after her marriage with Sanjiv Tandon, a Chartered Accountant, was living in Kanpur in 117/85 Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur with her in-laws. Smt. Vandana Tandon, respondent no. 1 in the case, moved an application in November 1984, under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act that she is the landlady of the accommodation and needed the same for her use and occupation and that she has to live with her in-laws after her marriage in one room causing her great hardship and that her need for the accommodation is bonaflde and genuine.; The I. E. L. filed a written statement admitting the bonafide and genuine need of the landlady and that they had no objection to the accommodation being released. The petitioner, however, then moved an application for her impleadment in the case and filed her written statement contesting the release application filed by respondent no. 1 on the ground that though the accommodation in dispute initially let out to I. E. L. and was in occupation of her husband who was an officer of the company but after the death of her husband on 25 -8-1982, on the basis of an agreement between the petitioner, the I. E. L. and Smt. Saroj Bhalla, the petitioner continued to pay the rent of the accommodation to Smt. Saroj Bhalla through the I. E. L. The petitioner contested the maintainability of the application by Smt. Vandana Tandon, respondent no. 1, on the ground that being one of the daughters of Smt. Saroj Bhalla she is not entitled to maintain the application as Smt. Vandana Tandon is only one of the heirs of Smt. Saroj Bhalla and further that the house is shown to belong to Sri R. N. Bhalla, husband of Smt. Saroj Bhalla and further that after the death of her husband, the petitioner continued to pay the rent through the I. E. L. and hence the petitioner is the tenant of the accommodation. The case of the petitioner further is that since she has denied the title of the respondent no. 1 to the accommodation in dispute and intricate question of title are involved and hence the application should have been returned for presentation to the proper court and the respondents 3 and 4 were not competent to decide the question of title.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority holding that Smt. Vandana Tandon was the landlady entitled to maintain the application and her need for the same was bonafide and genuine, allowed the application against which the petitioner went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge who also on going through the evidence on record and applying his mind to the same recorded a finding that Smt. Vandana Tandon, respondent no. 1, was the landlady entitled to maintain the application and further that the petitioner is not even a tenant but was allowed to continue in possession after the death of her husband, by the I. E. L. who was the tenant to whom the accommodation was let out and hence the petitioner was not entitled to file an objection to the release application and further held that the I. E. L. having filed an application that they have no objection to the release application being allowed, the application of the respondent no. 1 was entitled to be allowed and further recorded a finding that the need of respondent no. 1 for the accommodation was bonafide and genuine and that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent no. 1 if the accommodation was not released in her favour. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the same by means of this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that Smt. Vandana Tandon, respondent no. 1 being one of the daughters of Saroj Bhalla, was not entitled to maintain the application under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act, she being not the landlady entitled to occupy the accommodation in dispute. Secondly, it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had challenged the title of respondent no. 1 to the house in dispute and intricate question of title were involved and hence the application should have been returned for presentation to the proper court and respondents 3 and 4 could not proceed to decide the intricate questions of title involved in the case. Thirdly, it was argued that the petitioner would suffer greater hardship and hence also the application should not have been allowed.;