Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The brief facts of the case are that late Thakur Barjor Singh father of respondents no. 1 and 2, moved an application under Section 21 (2) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of accommodation in dispute consisting of two rooms and one verandah on the first floor of premises no. 111, A/189 Ashok Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The release application was contested by the tenant-petitioner Tirath Ram Khanna by filing written statement denying genuine and pressing need of the landlord. The release application was allowed by Judge Small Cause Court vide its judgment and order dated 25.10.1999. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.1999, petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No. 164 of 1999: Tirath Ram Khanna vs. Thakur Barjor Singh before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sri Kapil Deo and other tenant in a portion of the house in dispute vacated the portion in his possession and another portion consisting of two rooms, kitchen, verandah and bath-latrine was vacated by tenant Shri Narain which are now in the possession of respondent. It is further stated by the petitioner that one Gur Prasad Anand who was also a tenant of premises in dispute on ground floor consisting of three rooms, kitchen, bath-latrine expired and his family has subsequently shifted to Lucknow giving vacant possession of the said tenanted portion to the landlord, as such, the landlord now has sufficient accommodation in his possession and no genuine and bonafide need of the landlord-respondent remains existing for the tenanted portion of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondents are running a school in which the petitioner can be shifted and as they have an alternate accommodation there is no bonafide and pressing need of the landlord.
It appears that the appellate court/Addl. District Judge, Court No. 11, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 14.7.2010 dismissed the rent appeal filed by the petitioner holding that although Gur Prasad Anand had died, but his family yet is still in possession. The court below has also noted that in view of misconception that aforesaid tenanted portion of Gur Prasad Anand had fallen vacant, the petitioner also moved an application for its allotment in his favour. In this connection, the court below has also noted that petitioner is not attending the court which establishes the fact that he does not require the accommodation of Gur Prasad alleged by the petitioner to have fallen vacant.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that certain disputed portions have been vacated by the erstwhile tenants which are now in possession of the landlord is concerned, it is suffice to say that if any portion is vacated by a tenant then that portion continue to be covered within the purview of the Rent Control Act and available for allotment in accordance with law. Therefore, the need of landlord is not extinguished if some one portion of the disputed premises is vacated by a tenant and the bonafide need of the landlord continues to exist for which release application is filed and it cannot be fulfilled by vacating any other portion. His application for release has to be decided on merits in the facts and circumstances pleaded therein.
As regards alternate accommodation in school is concerned suffice it to say that the court below has rightly held that school is not a residential accommodation hence in my considered view it cannot be treated as alternate residential accommodation available to the petitioner. .
For all the reasons stated above, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 14.7.2010 in dismissing rent appeal of the petitioner by the court below. The petitioner has not made any effort to search for an accommodation during the pendency of proceedings in the court below which had also granted time to the petitioner for vacating the premises in dispute, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any further time to the petitioner for vacating the premises in dispute.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Dated: 19.10.2010 RCT/-