Through this writ petition the petitioner has sought relief for quashing of the impugned order dated 4-9-1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No.61 of 1992 and order dated 22-08-2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No,.14, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 178 of 1997, Mewa Ram Vs. Phoolmati.
Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present case are that the landlord-respondent No.1 (now deceased) has filed an application for release in the year 1992 on the ground that the disputed accommodation including entire building is in dilapidated condition under Section 21 (1)(a) and Section 21 (1) (b) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
In the release application, the number of family members who have come in the year 1990. The petitioner-tenant has filed an objection in December, 1992 stating therein that building is not in dilapidated condition and the need is not bonafide.
It appears that the parties have led their evidence before the Prescribed Authority. An Advocate Commissioner was also appointed for the inspection of the spot for ascertaining condition of the disputed accommodation. The Prescribed Authority after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into the material on record, has recorded finding that disputed accommodation is in dilapidated condition and it requires demolition or re-construction. The need was also set up by the landlord for residential purpose. The bonafide need and comparative hardship of the landlord was also found genuine. Consequently, the release application of the respondents was allowed by the learned Prescribed Authority on 4-9-1997 and directed the petitioner to hand over the possession within a month.
Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed an Appeal which was numbered as Appeal No. 178 of 1997, Mewa Ram Vs. Smt. Poolmati and others. The Appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Kanpur Nagar and the same was dismissed by the concerned court on 22-8-2009.
Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the court below has not considered the compliance of Rule 16 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). He has also tried to assail the finding recorded by the court below with regard to the personal need and comparative hardship but has not been able to show any material placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard who either has not been considered or misread. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings with regard to the bonafide need and comparative hardship, particularly, in the circumstances when the Appellate Authority has recorded that the petitioner's one son is living with 11 children in one room and another son- Chhota is living with 8 members in Khaprail-set and the petitioner is also living in one portion. The petitioner's grandsons have become adult and they are to be married. Further, the petitioner had retired from the Railway Department and is living throughout in the rented accommodation of Rs. 62-50 paise per month and later on he has been charging house rent enhancing Rs. 125/- per month from the Railway Department and he had not tried to find out any alternative accommodation during those period.
So far as the submissions of Sri Tripathi with regard to the compliance of Rule 16 of the Rules is concerned, the Appellate Court has very stated elaborately commissioner's resport with regard to the dilapidated condition of the building and report submitted by one Sri Maheshwar Prasad Mittal and considering the facts, the disputed accommodation is a dilapidated condition. So far as the tenant is concerned he himself has admitted in his written statement to the release application that the financial condition of the landlord is very good.
In view of that I am not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below with respect to the dilapidated condition. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is, accordingly dismissed.
Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at least one year may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the disputed accommodation.
Considering the facts of the case, it is provided that in case the petitioner files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within a period of three months from today, the petitioner shall vacate the disputed premises by 7th of July, 2010. If the petitioner will not vacate till then and in case he does not file undertaking before the authority concerned, the respondents are free to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.1.2010 Ak