MADAN MOHAN AGARWAL Vs. GIRISH KUMAR CHATURVEDI
LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-65
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 16,2008

MADAN MOHAN AGARWAL Appellant
VERSUS
GIRISH KUMAR CHATURVEDI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.U.Khan - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1, Girish Kumar Chaturvedi on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 (1A) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 15 of 1995. In the release application Gopal Prasad, tenant since deceased and survived by the petitioner was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 and Krishna Kumar Chaturvedi, respondent No. 2, in this writ petition, who is real brother of Girish Kumar Chaturvedi was impleaded as opposite party No. 2. Property in dispute is a house containing several rooms. In the release application it was stated that applicant was employed as Director of a National Channel J.N.U., Delhi and prior to that he was working at Radio Station, Delhi and prior to that he had also worked on other Radio Stations as Director. It was stated that applicant landlord had written seven books which had been published and by virtue of his service he was allotted a house in New Delhi. Release application was filed on 9.6.1995 and landlord applicant was to retire on 31.8.1995. During pendency of release application applicant actually retired. It was further stated in the release application that applicant intended to reside at Mathura in the house in dispute which is situate in mohalla/locality Chhatta Bazar, Mathura and he required the house in dispute for the said purpose. It was further stated that landlord applicant and his brother Krishna Kumar Chaturvedi had inherited two houses from their father, one was house in dispute and the other house was situate in mohalla Chuna Kankar, Mathura and by mutual arrangement the other house had gone in the share of Krishna Kumar Chaturvedi in which son of Krishna Kumar Chaturvedi was residing. It was stated in the release application that applicant and his brother K. K. Chaturvedi were joint owners of the house in dispute. The tenant pleaded that the other ancestral house of landlords situate in mohalla Chunna Kankar was quite big and sufficient to accommodate the applicant landlord also. It was also stated that applicant landlord was also having a house at Delhi regarding which power-of-attorney had been executed in his favour. In that regard landlord applicant asserted that he was only power-of-attorney holder of the said house and electricity bill was paid in the name of original owner Mohd. Iqbal.
(3.) IN the written statement it was also pleaded that a third house in mohalla Chunna Kankar bearing No. 31/7 was got vacated by the landlord from its previous tenant on the ground of bona fide need. However, the said house had been sold by landlord applicant on 13.2.1995 for Rs. 1,30,000. Trial court / prescribed authority/1st, A.D.J. (S.D.), Mathura rejected the release application through order dated 13.9.1996. Against the said judgment and order respondent No. 1 applicant in the release application filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 125 of 1996. A.D.J. Court No. 3 Mathura, through judgment and order dated 7.2.2003 allowed the appeal set aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority and consequently allowed the release application. Tenants have challenged the said order of the lower appellate court through this writ petition. Section 21 (1A) of the Act is quoted below : "Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 2, the prescribed authority shall, on the application of a landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from any building under tenancy, if it is satisfied that the landlord of such building was in occupation of a public building for residential purposes which he had to vacate on account of the cessation of his employment : Provided that an application under this sub-section may also be given by a landlord in occupation of such public building at any time within a period of one year before the expected date of cessation of his employment, but the order of eviction on such application shall take effect only on the date of his actual cessation." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.