Court No. - 26
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2764 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kanchan Dubey Respondent :- Additional District Judge Allahabad And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Swaroop Umrao,Mukesh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner herein challenging the order dated 11.09.2014 passed by the prescribed authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 14, Allahabad in P.A. Case No. 13 of 2006 and the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the learned ADJ, Court No. 8, Allahabad rejecting the Rent Appeal No. 11 of 2014. The petitioner had also prayed for a mandamus directing the Courts below not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner for evicting her from the tenanted premises.
It is the case of the petitioner as submitted by her counsel that the petitioner's father Sri Rajendra Prasad Pandey was inducted as a tenant in house No. 662/575 on monthly rent of Rs. 40/- per month who passed away about 15 years ago and after his death, the petitioner is residing in the tenanted portion with her husband. The petitioner/tenant had taken a specific plea in P.A. Case No. 13/2006 (Annapurna Devi Vs. Rajendra Prasad Pandey) that Annapurna Devi is not the landlord of the tenanted portion which was in possession of the father of the petitioner and thereafter by her. Initially, the landlord was one Narayani Devi. She sold a portion of house No. 662/575 to Annapurna Devi but the said portion sold off allegedly in December 1999 through a sale deed did not include the portion where the father of the petitioner and the petitioner thereafter was residing as tenant.
The father of the petitioner had initially filed Suit No. 782 of 2000 praying for injunction against Narayani Devi not to disturb the peaceful possession of the tenanted portion of the house. Later on, he also filed Misc. Case No. 217/2001 wherein he was depositing rent under Section 30(1) of Rent Control Act as Narayani Devi had refused to accept rent from him. In the first suit No. 782/2000, a temporary injunction was granted to the father of the petitioner/tenant restraining Narayani Devi from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession of the father of the petitioner as tenant. Later on, when Annapurna Devi, landlord/respondent herein started to interfere in the possession of Rajendra Prasad Pandey, he filed an application for amendment of the said Suit No. 782/2000 and impleaded Annapurna Devi and prayed for an injunction against her also. Learned Courts below have treated this amendment application to be sufficient proof of relationship of landlord and tenant in between the father of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner herself with Annapurna Devi and had rejected the objection made by the tenant/petitioner regarding non existence of landlord and tenant relationship.
Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in the application filed for release of the premises before the learned court below, the landlord/respondent had made out a specific case that Rajendra Prasad Pandey was the tenant of the tenanted portion. He later moved out to an independent house i.e. his personal house No. 129/41 and 3/2 in Mohalla Chakia, Allahabad. The petitioner who is the daughter of Rajendra Prasad Pandey has started living in the house without any authority in law as she cannot be said to be constituting the family of the tenant Rajendra Prasad Pandey.
Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon definition clause under section 3 (a) of Rent Control Act which defines a tenant and includes only such of his heirs as family residing with him in the building at the time of his death in case of residential house. Under section 3 (g), 'family' has been defined wherein married daughters are not included unless they are widowed, divorced or judicially separated. It is not the case of the petitioner/tenant that she is a widow or is divorced or judicially separated. She is living with her husband Vinod Dubey and her son in the tenanted premises.
This fact had been noted by the learned Court below and the learned Court below has taken into consideration that an amendment application was moved in O.S. No. 782/2000 wherein Rajendra Prasad Pandey, the father of the petitioner had sought an injunction also against Smt. Annapurna Devi, the respondent/landlord.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, this Court has gone through the orders impugned and does not find any factual or legal infirmity therein. The bona fide need of the landlady has been found to be genuine by the learned Courts below.
With regard to the dispute relating to the allegations that the landlady is not the owner of the portion in which the petitioner/tenant is residing, the petitioner/tenant did not make any attempt to prove on record the actual landlord of the property in dispute to show that the petitioner/tenant is not the tenant of the respondent but that of another person. No specific plea was taken as to the actual landlord of the tenanted premises as it is evident from the pleading that the landlady Narayani Devi has sold out several portions of the house in question to several different persons.
Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Madhurima