- (1.) AMARBIR Singh Gill, J. Petitioners are legal representatives of Sumer Mai Kothari, deceased, who was tenant in a por tion of the house in mohalla Qazipura, city Bahraich and was running the business by the name and style of Rajasthan Tent House. The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 13-3-1988 passed by Munsif Bahraich (Annexure-5) and the judgment dated 13-12 1988 of the District Judge, Bah raich by which both the authorities under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act XIII of 1972) have allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Janki Devi, owner/landlady of the por tion of the house in occupation of tenant Sumer Mai filed an application under Sec tion 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 for ejectment of Sumer Mai, tenant, on the ground of bona fide requirement for her own accupation and for the purposes of exten sion of the business being run by her grand son. THE landlady claimed that she alongwith her widowed daughter, her son alongwith wife and children are residing in the upper portion of the house and her family consists of seven persons and is de pendent upon the business of her grand son Ravi Prakash Goel which is not sufficient for the survival of the entire family. She herself is too old and she is being looked after by Ravi Prakash Goel, her daughter's son who are living with her and there is no proper place for Ravi Prakash Goel to run his business and he is using a wooden plat form to place upon few household articles for sale. She wants to extend her business and wants to instal flour mill etc. in the portion in occupation of the tenant for the survival of her family. She claimed that her tenant has built a big house in Chowk Bazar where he is carrying on the business in the name of "raj Hans Lodge" which was sub sequently changed to "sarika Lodge" where he can shift his tent house business. Besides, the tenant is carrying on business near Ohkar Talkies in the name of his eldest son and he has sufficient accommodation to shift if eviction is ordered. THE tenant is harassing her by filing false complaints and cases. . Sumer Mai, tenant contested the claim in his written statement and denied the allegation of personal need or require ment and claimed that there was sufficient accommodation with the landlady even to instal flour mill etc. because there were two rooms immediately behind wooden plat form where Ravi Prakash is selling general merchandise which can be used for the pur pose mentioned in the petition. The tenant respondent further claimed that he was car rying on his business initially of cloth busi ness and thereafter tent house in the dis puted premises and his business has ac quired a goodwill and there is no accom modation in which he can carry on the aforesaid business. He also denied if Ravi Prakash Goel was grand son (Nati) or a member of her family. He also denied if the landlady was dependent on the earnings of Ravi Prakash Goel, and claimed that the landlady does not require the premises for any busine 3 because she is already receiving sufficient rent for her livelihood. Ravi Prakash Goel and his family are living inde pendently although in the same house. The landlady has no concern with his business. He denied if there was any sufficient accom modation with him in the Sarika Lodge about which he had claimed that he has let out the same to his own sons Pradeep Kumar and Pramod Kumar, besides, the rooms are quite small. It is claimed that one son is living independently and the other son Madan Lal is living in the city separately and his second son Mool Chand is carrying on business of tent house in the disputed premises. He himself is residing in a rented house and there is no other accommodation available for him to shift his business of tent house. Learned Prescribed Authority (Munsif Bahraich) considered the case of the parties and the evidence and came to the conclusion that the landlady is aged widow, besides her widowed daughter and her fami ly are residing with her and looking after her needs and Ravi Prakash Goel being the son of her widowed daughter is living and sup porting the entire family. It was held that Ravi Prakash was selling goods etc. outside the house on a wooden platform and income is not sufficient for the survival of the entire family and the landlady intends to extend her business by installing a flour mill alongwith rice and pulses thrashing machines to augment her source of income. It was also found that the tenant- respon dent has sufficient accommodation with him i. e. Sarika Lodge which although is os tensibly let out to his own sons on payment of rent. However, they were living with the tenant and he is supporting them because, according to the tenant himself, their busi ness is not having any profit. Besides, there was no evidence if the rooms in the Sarika Lodge were not sufficiently big to accom modate the business of tent house. The Prescribed Authority also considered the comparative hardship and came to the con clusion that the landlady was in dire need of the accommodation which is bonafide one and the tenant has alternative accommoda tion to shift and continue his business. Ap plication for eviction of the tenant was thus allowed.
(3.) IN appeal the learned District Judge has also affirmed the findings referring to the entire evidence on the issues and has given a finding of fact that the landlady bona fide required the premise for her own use and occupation besides that Ravi Prakash Goel was not stranger to the family and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard at length.;