Y.K.SANGAL,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 15.12.1990 and 20.03.1986 passed by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 in P.A.Case No. 142 of 1984 Mehndi Hassan etc. vs. Baquar Ali and Rent Control Appeal No. 45 of 1986 Baquar Ali vs. Mehndi Hassan respectively. By the judgments and orders, both the courts below have allowed the application of the landlord/respondent nos. 3 to 9 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 9. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are IXth Additional District Judge, Lucknow and prescribed authority, Vth Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow who passed the aforesaid orders, so have been joined. Mainly on two points, application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the application') are decided by the courts : (1)Bonafide, genuine and pressing need of the landlord regarding tenanted premise. (2)Comparative hardship of the landlord in rejecting the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act moved against the tenant. Dispute in the case is regarding the residential accommodation detailed in the application. Relationship of landlord and tenant regarding the disputed premise is not disputed between the parties. Rate of rent of the tenanted premise, Rs. 25 per month also not disputed. In the same house of the tenanted premise, in a part landlord also resides and it is the part and partial of the residential house of the landlord, is also not denied by the tenants. Detail of the accommodation in possession of the landlord given in paragraph 6 of the application indicates that only two rooms and open roof at first floor and it is said that these are also used as place of worship and storing the goods, also used for Zardozi work (Embroidery work for business purpose) and for sleeping of family members and other daily routine purposes. Rasta for first floor accommodation also passes through one of the rooms, amongst these two rooms. There are seven members in the family of the landlord, detail given in the application. All the members of the family of the landlords are now major persons. Applicants 1 to 6/landlords are brothers and sisters and are of marriageable ages and applicant no. 7 is their widow mother aged 60 years. Need of all the applicant nos. 1 to 6 shown for the tenanted premise for residential and study purposes and also to maintain secrecy of the life etc. Need of applicant no. 7 was also to live in the tenanted premise which lies on the ground floor showing that she is an old lady and unable to climb the stairs. It is said that three applicants are college/school going persons. On the other hand, it is said on behalf of the petitioners in the written statement that they are 19 persons in number residing there. In paragraph 19 of the written statement details of tenanted premise shown, two rooms, two kotharis, one Varanda, one Angan on the ground floor and one room and open roof on the first floor. This accommodation was let out to Baquar Ali, ancestor of the petitioners (who died during the pendency of the case) more than 50 years ago from today by the father of the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 and husband of petitioner no. 7. Both the original landlord and tenant have died and now parties are their heirs. Disputed accommodation situates in middle of the Lucknow city in posh area i.e. Latoosh Road and rent amount is only Rs. 25 per month. Petitioners' family members admittedly having two other accommodations in their possession in the vicinity of the Lucknow city. One in Wazirbag and another in Mohalla Muftiganj (said in possession of Ysuf son of Baquar) as said, in pragraph 22 and 23 of the written statement. Some of the family members of original tenant Baquar (deceased) reside in these houses, it is also not in dispute. As per case of the petitioners, due to paucity of the accommodation for the family members these two other houses/accommodations were arranged later on. Why a big accommodation or any other 3rd accommodation for other family members to accommodate whole of the family members was not searched, it is not sufficiently explained. It was said that they cannot not afford to take any other house and pay rent for other accommodation. For other accommodation they will have to pay more rent only on this ground, bonafide, genuine and pressing need of the landlord cannot be denied. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that landlord cannot be forced to arrange some other accommodation to meet out their bonafide need and tenants cannot be permitted to occupy his house on this nominal rent. Argument of learned counsel cannot be said without force. In the same house where petitioners reside as tenant, in a portion at first floor in two rooms, accommodation about six family members of the respondents are residing undisputedly. They all are now major persons. Three out of them are studying in School/college. Naturally, they should be provided some independent room/place for study purpose. Major girl of the family also requires a separate accommodation. They all are of marriageable age. After marriage, their requirements to live in separate accommodation, also cannot be denied. As regards, the matter of applicant no. 7, she is more than 80 years of age at the present time. At this age climbing by her stairs cannot be advised medically also.
(3.) THE house was let out more than 50 years ago by the father of the applicant nos. 1 to 6. Later on due to increase in family, after about 30 years when the premise was let out, this application was moved to meet out the needs of the family members. If it is released, they can accommodate themselves in the said premise it is said in the application. Two other accommodations are shown at the disposal of the landlord, one in Kuchamirjan and another adjacent to the house in dispute no. 52, Kuchamirzan's accommodation was shown that it is being used as IMAMBARA and is in possession of other co-sharers. Admittedly, landlord/applicants are not now residing in the house of Kuchamirzan. It is also said on behalf of the applicants that it cannot be get partitioned as it is an IMAMBARA. As regard the house no. 52, adjacent to the house in dispute, it was explained that it is in the shape of business premise and shops are there and they are in possession of the tenants and cannot be used for residential purpose. It was specifically denied that this property no. 52 can be used for residential purpose. No believable, admissible evidence was adduced to rebut the case of the respondents on behalf of the petitioners. No commissioner's report was also made available on the record to show that this property is not being used for business purposes. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the respondents in regard to these properties shown in their possession. All these facts are sufficient to show the bonafide, pressing and genuine needs of the landlord.;