JUDGMENT Rakesh Sharma, J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for respondents.
2. This is a tenant's writ petition challenging the release/eviction order passed by the Prescribed authority/ Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar, Faizabad on 11.10.2002 and the appellate court's order dated 7.3.2006 dismissing the appeal of the tenant. The petitioner-tenant has been directed to vacate the premises in question.
3. It emerges from record that in the year 1970, the petitioner's husband late Gokul Chandra was inducted as tenant in the first and second floors of House No. 975, Mohalla Fatehganj, in the city of Faizabad. The tenant was paying Rs. 50 per month as rent for the two floors' accommodation having three rooms, kitchen, courtyard, latrine, bath-rooms, roof etc. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act, was filed by the landlord for release of the above premises under the tenancy of the petitioner. It was indicated in the said release application that Gokul Chandra, the original tenant, had died and his widow, petitioner and her sons Mahendra Kumar, Surendra Kumar and Narendra Kumar had inherited the tenancy of the above house. The landlord had submitted in the application that he was living in a rented House No. 894 in Mohalla Fatehganj, city Faizabad and the same was insufficient to accommodate his large family and that in view of his growing family, he required the first and second floors of house No. 975, Fatehganj, in the tenancy of the petitioner, for the use of his family members-five sons and daughters-in- law, etc. The release of the premises in question was sought on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord's family for additional accommodation.
4. The petitioner-tenant filed a joint written statement indicating therein that House No. 894 in which the family of the landlord was residing, was having four big rooms, latrine, bath-rooms, chabutara, etc. The proceedings for ejectment of the landlord from the said residential accommodation occupied by him as tenant were dismissed and, therefore, the ground of pending litigation was not available to him. It was further submitted by the petitioner-tenant that the ground floor of House No. 975 was lying empty. This portion could be used by the landlord or the same may be provided to the petitioner for her use and occupation. As far as the purchase of two houses by the petitioner's sons is concerned, the tenant has submitted that she wants to live alone in the said rented House No. 975, Fatehganj, Falzabad. The sons are living independently. No member of her family is living with her except Smt. Baby, opposite party No. 5, her daughter. The Advocate Commissioner's report was not properly considered by the learned lower courts. The documentary and oral evidence was totally Ignored by the prescribed authority while allowing the release application. The prescribed authority had ignored to consider that the ground floor of the accommodation in question could be used for residential purposes. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Rule 16(1) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, framed under the Act, the landlord's need could have been satisfied by releasing only a part of the premises. The ground floor of the house could have been made available to the petitioner-tenant, or the landlord could have used the same for his residential purposes. As per learneu counsel for the petitioner, it was the duty of the Court to take into consideration this aspect of the matter while appreciating the requirement of the accommodation for personal occupation of the landlord. Sri S.K. Mehrotra has further submitted that the principle of 'Live and let live' should be followed in landlord-tenant matters. He has placed reliance on Smt. Raj Rani Mehrotra v. IInd Additional District Judge and Ors. 1980 ARC 311 (SC) and Smt. Munni v. 1st Additional District Judge, Jhansi and Ors. 1985 (2) ARC 219, in support of his submissions.
5. Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the petitioner- tenant has not come with clean hands. After the death of original tenant, the petitioner and her family members were occupying two floors of House No. 975 Fatehganj, Faizabad at a meagre rent of Rs. 100 per month (claimed as Rs. 50 per month by the tenant). They have been occupying three rooms, one courtyard, roof, latrine, bath-rooms, etc. In the central place of the city of Faizabad. The landlord was living in a rented house. At the time of submission of release application, i.e., in the year 1987, he was having three married sons-Suresh Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Mahesh Kumar and two unmarried sons Dinesh Kumar (23 years) and Umesh Kumar (19 years). This release application was disposed of on 11.10.2002. The landlord is now having a large family of twenty-five members-wife, sons, daughters-in-law, grandsons and granddaughters. He is living in a rented accommodation. He has categorically submitted that he and his sons are still facing eviction proceedings initiated by their landlords. As far as the ground floor portion of House No. 975 is concerned, it has been submitted that the same is not inhabitable. The tenant and her family members throw garbage from the first and second floors of the said house. This fact has been noted by the Advocate Commissioner Sri Ashok Kumar in his report. The ground floor of the house consists of two rooms, latrine, bath-rooms, kitchen, etc. and the landlord is storing his house-hold goods in the said portion" of the premises. The rented premises in occupation of the landlord is insufficient to accommodate his large family consisting of twenty-five members.
6. Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord has pointed out that the petitioner-tenant is having three grown-up sons Mahendra Kumar, Surendra Kumar and Narendra Kumar. They are married and gainfully employed in local Saket Post-graduate College. All her sons are having their own houses. One son is having a big house on a 2850 sqr. feet plot in the city of Faizabad. Petitioner-tenant Smt. Vidyawati, who is now seventy-four years old, can live with her sons and grandsons in one of the three houses owned by her own sons. The bona flde need of the landlord has been established before the courts below. The landlord's need is genuine. He is facing greater hardships than the tenant as a large joint family of the landlord is still living in a rented accommodation. According to Sri Pandey, it is strange to note as to why a lady, who is 74 years old widow, is insisting to live alone in the two floors of the rented house. She should live with her sons and their families. He has further submitted that after the death of original tenant, his heirs succeeded to the tenancy as joint tenants and not tenants in common. He has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions:
(1) H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul ;
(2) Hart Shanker v. IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Ors. 1995 (26) ALR 287: and (3) Mohammed Ayub v. Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Ors. 2002 (1) ARC 35.
7. I have gone through the material on record, pleadings of the parties, and judgments passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate court. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts, which have gone in favour of the landlord. The premises in question has been released on the ground of bona flde need of the landlord. In the present case, the petitioner-tenant and her family have been enjoying a large accommodation having two floors at a meagre rent of Rs. 50 per month in the city of Faizabad for the last thirty-six years. Rs. 50 or 100 per month is virtually no rent in the eye of law for such a huge accommodation having three rooms, roof, courtyard, kitchen, latrine, bathrooms and other amenities, etc. in the central area of the city of Faizabad. It has been admitted by the petitioner-tenant that her three sons are married, employed and are having their own houses and have acquired properties. She is a 74-years old lady. She cannot insist upon staying all alone in a rented house at the costs of landlord. The landlord is still living in a rented accommodation with a large family having twenty-five members. Considering the number of family members and other circumstances of the case, I find no merit to interfere with the orders passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority. It is also noteworthy that after the death of original tenant, i.e., Gokul Chandra, his widow Smt. Vidyawati petitioner and his three sons succeeded to the tenancy as joint tenants, vide H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul . The said three sons, joint tenants are having their own houses, wherein they are living with their family members. In view of the recent decision of this Court in Govind Lal v. IInd A.D.J., Jhansi and Anr. 2006 (1) ARC 213, the petitioner being one of the Joint tenants cannot be said to have no alternative accommodation. She cannot now insist to stay in the rented accommodation, more so when there is nothing on record to show that the sons were not willing to keep their mother, petitioner with them. It is interesting to note that Mahendra Kumar, Surendra Kumar and Narendra Kumar, sons of late Gokul Chandra, original tenant of House No. 975, Fatehganj, Faizabad, have not challenged the orders passed by the prescribed authority or the appellate authority. The appeal was filed by the petitioner Smt. Vidyawati and her 39-years old daughter Smt. Baby, who is married and is having her marital home at Tanda in district Faizabad. The intentions of the petitioner tenant are thus not clear. She somehow wants to retain the tenanted accommodation unnecessarily without any bona fide need. In the present case, the landlord is facing real hardships.
8. So far as the case set up by the petitioner under Rule 16(1)(d) of the Rules framed under the Act is concerned, it has already come on record that the landlord has kept his house-hold items in the ground floor of House No. 975, rented out to the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner's three own sons, joint-tenants have already acquired properties and are living in their own houses, the landlord cannot be forced to allow the 74-years old widow to occupy the premises in question. There appears to be no justification for making such a demand by the tenant. The landlord has proved before the courts below and this Court that he is having a large family. It is admitted to both the parties that House No. 894, where the landlord is living with his wife, five sons and their families is a rented premises and is insufficient to accommodate all of them. In these circumstances, the case laws cited by Sri S. K. Mehrotra are of no help to the petitioner.
9. This Court has also noted that after the release application was filed, the petitioner-tenant has not made any effort to search an accommodation; rather it has been proved before the courts below that the petitioner's three sons, joint tenants are now living in their own houses in the city of Faizabad. In view of the Supreme Court authority in B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada , this by itself was sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship against the tenant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sfddalmgama v. M. Sehenoy , has held that entire Rent Control Act is basically meant for the benefit of the tenant and provision of release on the ground of bona fide need is the only provision which treats the landlords with some sympathy. The landlord Sri Ram Agarwal desires to live with his family in his own house. He has a right to live in his own house leaving the rented accommodation. It would be wholly unreasonable to compel the landlord to continue living in a rented house when the tenant's sons have already built their own houses. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to cling to the premises in question.
10. In view of above discussion, there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall vacate and hand over the peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord, respondent No. 1 within a month from today.