Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.P. Pandey appearing for caveator respondent and perused the record.
Landlady respondent no. 3 filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which was registered as Rent case no. 2 of 2008, for release of the accommodation under tenancy of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that her family consists of nine members; that she is living with her family in a room measuring 10 x 10 feet with courtyard, kitchen, latrine and bathroom in house no. 132/50, Babupurwa,Kanpur; that she does not own any other house; that petitioner tenant is residing in the house in question on monthly rent of Rs. 30/-; that petitioner tenant is having his own vacant house no. 131/303, Begumpurwa, Kanpur Nagar which is situated at a distance of 50 yards only from the house in question; that she needs the accommodation in question so as to live with her family and that petitioner tenant will not suffer any hardship if the accommodation in question is released in her favour. It was also stated that the petitioner is a very bad pay master of rent and recently the rent for the period 25.8.1999 to 25.11.2007 was paid by him through postal money order which she has received.
The petitioner tenant contested the release application by filing his written statement in which he admitted that he owned house no. 131/303, Babupurwa, Kanpur Nagar but submitted that there is no residential accommodation in that house comprising of two rooms and he is doing tailoring work there.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the prescribed authority framed the following issues :
1.Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
2.Whether landlady is in need of and bonafide requires the accommodation in question.
3.Whether landlady would suffer greater comparative hardship than the tenant petitioner.
On the basis of admission by the parties, issue no. 1 was decided holding that there exists relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. The prescribed authority after considering the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that landlady has succeeded in establishing her bonafide need for the accommodation in question and thus issue no. 2 was decided in favour of the landlady. Similarly, issue no. 3 was also decided in favour of the landlady holding that she would suffer greater hardships than the tenant petitioner in case the accommodation in question is not released. The prescribed authority thereafter allowed the release application by impugned order dated 5.11.2009, directing the petitioner tenant to handover peaceful possession to the landlady within a period of one month.
Aggrieved the petitioner tenant filed rent appeal no. 126 of 2009 which has also been dismissed by impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2010 confirming the findings recorded by the prescribed authority.
After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the case of the petitioner is that he is living in the tenanted accommodation consisting of one room, varandah, latrine/bathroom and that house no. 132/303-A in the name of his mother does not have any place to live as the two room in this house are used as shop and as such eight members of his family are compelled to live in one room of the tenanted house and that the landlady has got 100 sq. yards of house no. 132/58 in family partition and the accommodation vacated by tenants Asgar and Aslam. The case of the landlady before the courts below was that house no. 132/58 is ancestral in which her father-in-law got five rooms in partition in which her husband and his two brothers also have a share. As regards accommodation got vacated from tenants Asgar and Aslam is concerned, it is denied and stated that 103 persons are living therein . Whereas house no. 132/303-A of the tenant is concerned, it is stated that the tenant is using it for getting clothes stitched therein which are sold by him in his shop of readymade garments; that house no. 132/303-A of the tenant is not recorded as a commercial building and merely because the tenant is using his own house for purpose of stitching clothes will not make it a commercial building. It is evident that the petitioner has not shown or established any other difficulty or hardship.
The courts below have rightly rejected the suggestion of the tenant to the landord to get the building house no. 132/50 vacated from other tenants. It is the legal right of the landlord to decide which portion or accommodation would suit him/her for utilizing it how and in what manner. This factor of utility is to be satisfied by him to meet his needs is only dependent upon the landlord only and a tenant has no say in the matter. The landlady has substantiated her case by record and evidence particularly by establishing that house no. 131/303-A is in the name of other of the tenant having two room and is a residential building.
As the petitioner tenant has his own house in the vicinity of the tenanted house in question, there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned.
For all the aforesaid reasons, in my considered view, the petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dt/-4.10.2010 SNT/