R.P. Singh, J. - (1.) SINCE both the Writ petitions arise out of the same order passed by the District Judge, Jhansi in proceedings under Section 21(2)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 19/2, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the facts of the cases are same, they are being decided by common judgment. Writ Petition No. 13740 of 1988 will be the leading case. The facts of the case briefly are that Smt. Kusum Lata Srivastava respondent No. 1 is the landlady of house No. 69/84, Civil Lines, Jhansi and in the western portion of which the petitioner Smt. Dyman Prabha Dogra is the tenant. The landlady respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act for the release of the disputed accommodation on the ground that her husband has now been transferred back to Jhansi where he is working as Head Accountant while her family consists of herself, her husband, two grown up daughters and one son white the total accommodation available to the landlady consists of three rooms, verandah and a small courtyard which is wholly insufficient for the accommodation of the family members of the landlady and since now the eldest daughter of the landlady who is M.Sc., B.Ed. also wants to start tuition for which she needed a separate room, the accommodation in possession of the landlady is totally inadequate and insufficient and hence her need for the disputed accommodation in possession of the tenant is bona fide and genuine and she would be put to greater hardship if the disputed accommodation is not released in her favour.
(2.) THE application moved by the landlady was contested by the petitioner/tenant Smt. Dyman Prabha Dogra on the ground that the two grown up daughters of the landlady of one whom is M.Sc., B.Ed. while the other daughter is studying in M.A. are going to be married in the near future and after their marriage the landlady would have ample accommodation for herself, her husband and one son and hence the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation is not bona fide and genuine and further that the eldest daughter of the landlady is in fact not going to start any tuition work for which an additional room is alleged to be required and further that the petitioner is a teacher getting a salary of Rs. 461 per month from the school and has no alternative accommodation and she would be put to greater hardship in case the application of the landlady is allowed. The prescribed Authority after considering the evidence led by the parties held that the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation was bona fide and genuine and greater hardship would be caused to her in case the accommodation is not released and with these finding allowed the application. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner went up in appeal before the learned District Judge who held that the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation was bona fide and genuine but her need could be served by releasing only a part of the accommodation while leaving the remaining part of the accommodation with the tenant which would adequately meet the tenants need and vide his order dated 12.9.83 the learned District Judge ordered the release of one room 10' x 12' in the south western corner of the house along with covered verandah of the size of 5' x 10' in favour of the landlady and further ordering a proportionate reduction in the rent from Rs. 250/ - per month to Rs. 200/ - per month.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , however, the petitioner tenant filed an application before the learned District judge for clarification of his order 12.9.83 to the effect that by the part release of the accommodation by which one room and part of the verandah has been released in favour of the landlady, no passage for the ingress or egress is left to the tenant for the other room which is left with her and the petitioner be allowed to open a door in the room towards the south. While deciding this application the learned District Judge changed his order dated 12.9.83 passed in appeal at the instance of the landlady who suggested that instead of the smaller room alongwith covered verandah adjoining the same, the bigger room of the size of 12' x 14' in possession of the tenant may be released in favour of the landlady and hence the learned District Judge vide his order dated 20.10.83 changed his order in the following manner. Hence after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I now change the order dated 12.9.1983. Instead of the room in the southwest corner 10' x 10' and the verandah 5' x 10' the room 12' x 14' adjoining the inner gallery of the portion of the landlady is released in favour of the landlady -respondent. It is these orders passed by the District Judge, Jhansi dated 12.9.83 and the subsequent order passed by the District Judge, Jhansi, dated 20.10.83 modifying and changing his earlier order which are in challenge in the present writ petition and these very orders are also challenged by the landlady in the connected writ petition No. 13202 of 1983.;