- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady respondent on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of Case No. 14 of 2005. Prescribed Authority/additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar, through judgment and order dated 18. 1. 2008 allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and or der, tenant petitioner filed Rent Appeal No. 29 of 2008, which was dismissed by A. D. J. /special Judge (E. G. Act), Kanpur Nagar on 22. 7. 2008, hence this writ petition. At the top of the release application, it was stated that it was being filed under section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Landlady peti tioner stated that property in dispute belonged to her father and in partition between her brothers and sisters, which was also recognised through a decree passed in a suit, property in dispute had fallen in her share. It was also stated that total house the tenanted property is a part of which is constructed over an area of 83 square meters situate in a Patkapur Kanpur Nagar and that tenanted accommodation consisted of two rooms, kitchen, latrine and courtyard on the ground floor, rent of which is Rs. 30/- per month. It was further stated that house was more than 100 years old and in dilapidated condition and landlady required the house in dispute for her residential need after reconstruction. It was further stated that tenant was residing in his house in Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar along with his family. It was further stated that landlady was residing in adjoining two rooms and family of the landlady consisted of herself and three major sons, who were of marriageable age but their marriages were held up due to paucity of accommodation. It was further stated that landlady had some married daughters, who also occasionally visited her. The first objection raised by the tenant was that after partition, through decree dated 17. 1. 2003, six months' notice was not given to him as required by first proviso to section 21 (1) of the Act. Courts below rightly held that said proviso was applicable if tenanted property was purchased. In any case, even one of the landlords is enti tled to file release application as held in Full Bench authority of this Court in Copal Das v. A. D. J. 1987 (13) ALR 275 (FB) Moreover, the Supreme Court in India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandel Agarwalla 2004 (55) ALR 98 (SC)=2004 (14) AIC 80 (SC) and Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, 2006 (63) ALR 506 (SC)=2006 (41) AIC 129 (SC) has held that even one of the landlords can file eviction proceedings against tenant and he need not show the consent of the other landlords. Landlord had pleaded that tenanted accommodation consisted of two rooms, however the tenant asserted that it was one room and one verandah. However, this difference was meaningless. Tenant also pleaded that building was not in dilapidated condition. Landlord filed engineer's report showing that building was 90-100 years old and in dilapidated condition. Report was also proved by the affidavit of engineer. Tenant pleaded that just adjacent to the house in dispute, landlady had constructed a new house containing six rooms. This version was thoroughly disbelieved by the Courts below. Apart from bald assertion, tenant could not adduce any evidence to support the said plea. Both the Courts below rightly found that the need of landlady was quite bonafide. An old lady and her three major sons cannot be squeezed in two rooms.
(3.) IN respect of comparative hardship, Courts below found that tenant did not make any efforts to search alternative accommodation, hence question of hardship had to be decided against him. I do not find least error in the concur rent findings of the Courts below. Courts below allowed the release application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months' time to vacate provided that: 1. Within one month from today petitioner tenant files an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover pos session of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 3,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the prescribed authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and tenant-petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 3,000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-per month since after six months till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt peti tion for violation of undertaking and execution application under section 23 of the Act. Writ Petition Dismissed. .;