TRILOKI NATH TANDON Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.12.1995 passed by respondent No. 1. allowing the appeal and releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of landlady/respondent No. 2, under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 16.3.1996 rejecting the application of the petitioner for recalling the said order. Briefly the facts stated are that the respondent No. 2 (landlady) is the owner of premises No. 113/56 -A, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur Nagar consisting of four rooms, one store room, one box room, Kitchen, latrine and bath alongwith verandah. She filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on 10.9.1992 against the petitioner. It was alleged in the application that Smt. Munni Devi, widow of late Sri Ayodhya Nath Tandon and mother of the landlady (respondent No. 2) was the owner of the disputed premises, she executed her Will in favour of the applicant -landlady on 4.12.1974. Smt. Munni Devi died on 2.3.1991 and by virtue of her last Will the landlady (respondent No. 2) became the sole landlady and the owner of the disputed premises. The husband of the applicant (respondent No. 2) was posted as Professor and Head of the Department of Physiology, at Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College, Meerut. During his tenure of service as Professor and Head of Department at Meerut, he was in occupation of professor's Bungalow consisting of three bedrooms with two attached latrines and bathrooms, drawing -cum -dining room, one store room, one kitchen, one guest room with attached latrine and bathrooms, one servant quarter, one motor garage along with verandah and big lawns. He retired from the said post on 31.3.1992. The family of landlady (respondent No. 2) consists of herself, husband, son. Dr. Rajiv Mehrotra, daughter -in -law and Grandson - -Master Shikhin Mehrotra. The husband of the landlady (Respondent No. 2) after his retirement is in possession of a small one roomed accommodation in premises No. 117 H -1/329, Kakadeo, Kanpur which is in the name of her husband. The petitioner tenant is in possession of four rooms, one store room, one box room, Kitchen, Latrine, Bathroom along with verandah of premises No. 113/56 -A at Kanpur. His family consists of opposite party No. 1, Sri Triloki Nath Tandon, wife Smt. Sudha Tandon, Son Sri Alok Tandon, Daughter Km. Richa Tandon and opposite party No. Smt. Prem Tandon. The tenant -petitioner is the owner and landlord of a large portion of premises No. 28/9, Pheel Khana, Kanpur which is his ancestral property, where he can easily shift without any difficulty.

(2.) THE petitioner filed objection and contested the application filed by the landlady (respondent No. 2). It was stated that the landlady owns a huge and spacious house being house No. 117/H -1/329, Kakadeo, Kanpur Nagar and she does not require any further accommodation. The Prescribed Authority vide his Order dated 13.6.1995 rejected the release application on the ground that the accommodation with landlady in house No. 117/H -1/329, aforesaid, consists of two rooms, one Kothari, one covered verandah and two apartments covered with asbestos sheets is sufficient enough for her needs and also on the ground that the landlady has not offered to the petitioners by way of alternative accommodation of the Kakadeo House. Being aggrieved by Order dated 13.6.1995, respondent No. 2 landlady filed appeal being Rent Appeal No. 111 of 1995, under Section 22 of the Act. Subsequently the said appeal was transferred to the Court of respondent No. 1 (VIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar).

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the respondent No. 1 illegally held that the respondent No. 2 needs disputed accommodation.