S.U.Khan - (1.) AT the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent, hence only the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were heard.
(2.) HEARING of this writ petition had been expedited by the Supreme Court through order dated 28.1.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 717 of 2008. This is landlady's writ petition, whose release application on the ground of bona fide need has been rejected by both the courts below. Release application filed under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was registered as P.A. Case No. 36 of 1994. Prescribed Authority A.C.J.M. VIII, Allahabad rejected the release application through order dated 9.11.1998. Against the said order, landlady petitioner filed R.C. Appeal No. 302 of 1998. A.D.J., Court No. 18, Allahabad dismissed the appeal through judgment and order dated 8.3.2001, hence this writ petition. Property in dispute is residential in nature and situate on the ground floor. On the first floor, landlady is residing. She asserted that she required additional accom-modation and the said need could be fulfilled by release of the ground floor in tenancy occupation of tenant respondent No. 3, Vijai Singh Rathor. Landlady stated that her family consisted of 15 persons and accom-modation in her possession on the first floor consisted of only four rooms and a baithak/drawing room. Landlady stated that he had five sons, aged in between 35 years to 20 years, out of whom two were married when release application was filed. Landlady had two daughters also. During pendency of release application, both the daughters and two more sons of the landlady were married. Property in dispute is situate in Mohalla Badshahi Mandi, Allahabad and its number is 238. Landlady herself stated that the two adjoining houses numbered as 240 and 240A also belonged to her. However, it was stated that litigation regarding said houses was pending in the High Court.
(3.) IN the tenanted accommodation in dispute on the ground floor, there are six big rooms, court-yard, kitchen, latrine and bathroom. It was also pleaded by the landlady that tenant had another house available to him in the same mohalla, which was numbered as 214/254. Both the courts below found that houses No. 252 and 237 situate in the same locality were available to the landlady. Before shifting to the first floor accommodation in dispute landlady was residing in House No. 252. House in dispute was purchased by the landlady in the year 1970 along with another house bearing No. 237. The first floor portion of house No. 238 was in tenancy occupation of another tenant. Landlady filed release application on the ground of bona fide need against the said tenant also. IN appeal, parties compromised and the said tenant handed over possession of the said portion to the landlady. I do not agree with the observation of the lower appellate court that delivery of possession of first floor of house No. 238 to the landlady was not proper and legal as no finding regarding bona fide need was recorded. Parties can always compromise any matter. The said dispute was in between landlady and other tenant. In any case, the fact that the landlady got possession of the first floor of house No. 238 clearly proved that need of the landlady for the said accommodation was bona fide.;