Lakshman Prasad Mahendra vs Ist Additional District Judge and Others

Amarbir Singh Gill, J.—This writ petition is by the owner/landlord of a house situated in Mohalla Nayee Basti, Sitapur City. The Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 3.9.1984 passed by the Prescribed Authority, copy of which is Annexure 2 and judgment dated 30.7.1987 of the 1st Additional District Judge in appeal; confirming the decision of the Prescribed Authority, whereby the application moved u/s 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), moved by the present Petitioner was dismissed.

Petitioner filed an application for eviction of tenant, opposite party No. 3 Smt. Phoolmali Rastogi from the tenanted house in her occupation on the plea that the premises were required for personal use and occupation after demolition as the disputed premises have become dilapidated and got to be demolished for which the requisite reconstruction map has been passed by the Municipal Board, Sitapur. It was also claimed that the present accommodation with the applicant consists of only two rooms, which is not sufficient for the family, which consisted of seven members. His son has got married and the relations between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law remain strained and the requirement is genuine one. The application was contested, wherein the tenant/opposite party denied if there was any bona fide requirement for more accommodation or if the premises on rent was dilapidated and requires demolition besides that the tenant has no other means or other house in the town. The Prescribed Authority after considering the case held that the requirement was not bona fide and the portion of house under tenancy was fit for residence and requires no demolition. The Appellate Court as well held that the house in question consists of more than one Unit and if the Unit under the occupation of tenant is still not dilapidated one, landlord can reconstruct the dilapidated portion of the house. Besides, the accommodation with the applicant was found to be sufficient and the requirement not bona fide one,

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri H. S. Sahai has contended that the present accommodation with the Petitioner consists of only two rooms over the shop, wherein he along with his family members, which has seven members, is living and after the marriage of the son the requirement became more genuine because of the strained relations of his wife with his daughter-in-law, who are residing in the same house. It was also contended that the condition of the house has been admitted to be dilapidated and if the part of the house has become unsafe, the entire building has to be demolished.

It appears that the Petitioner/landlord did not disclose the true extent of present accommodation with him because it has come on record that apart from the two rooms already in occupation of the landlord, the adjoining house had also been purchased earlier to the present application, which consists of two big rooms, two covered courtyards, covered verandah, kitchen, latrine which along with two rooms can be termed sufficient accommodation for the family of the landlord. It is no doubt, contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the adjoining house which has been purchased by the landlord is not fit for residence, but no such foundation was laid in the application for eviction, muchless disclosing the availability of this accommodation to him. No material has been produced to show if the additional accommodation available to the landlord was in any manner unfit for human habitation. The plea of the Petitioner that he required the premises in occupation of the tenant for his personal use and occupation after its demolition stands belied on the record of the case and has also been considered so.

Once the court finds that the landlord has sufficient accommodation with him and he has no genuine need or requirement to ask for release of the accommodation in occupation of the tenant by eviction of the latter, there appears to be no reason to further consider, if the premises in occupation of the tenant were in dilapidated condition and required demolition. Even on this aspect as well, the learned Prescribed Authority had the added advantage of his personal inspection of the premises in occupation of the tenant and he has specifically found that the portion in occupation of the tenant Smt. Phoolmati Rastogi was still fit for human habitation and the other portion which was in dilapidated condition can be reconstructed. As has been argued, it appears that the building, a part of which is on rent with the opposite party, consists of two Units, facing two roads and the Municipal Committee has also given two numbers for the same and in case the other Unit is separable or separate and is in dilapidated condition, the landlord can reconstruct the same after demolition. There is no evidence produced by the Petitioner that both the portions are so connected that the alteration or reconstruction of one is likely to disturb or endanger the other portion, which is in possession of the tenant. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision in Phool Chand Prasad and Anr. v. IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh and Anr. 1982 ARC 766, in which it has been observed that if a portion, which is not dilapidated, is a small portion of the entire structure and the rest of the building is in a dilapidated condition, then the entire building will have to be treated as dilapidated. However, the facts of the present case are somewhat different. As has already been referred to above, the Prescribed Authority on his inspection has observed that East Unit of the house is in dilapidated condition whereas the portion in the occupation of the tenant, is not and the landlord if so desires, can reconstruct the other Unit. In the cited decision of Phool Chand Prasad etc. etc. (supra), the factual position was that the entire house including half of back portion of the shop in question was in dilapidated condition and in such circumstances, it was observed that the shop in question should have been released on the ground that the portion in not dilapidated condition was a small part of the building. As already observed above, in this case the very application of the Petitioner mentions the tenant to be in occupation of southern Unit of the house and the other Unit was in occupation of another tenants shows that both Units are separable from each other.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, otherwise has not referred to any legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact of both the authorities below. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Muni Lal and Others Vs. Prescribed Authority and Others, , the finding of fact is not to be disturbed while exercising writ Jurisdiction, more so even no infirmity in the finding could be referred to by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. There is, thus, no merit in this petition.

In view of the discussions above, this petition fails and is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.