Laxmi Narain vs Smt. Ram Dulari and Others

Hari Swarup, J.—This petition has been filed against the orders passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer u/s 3 of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) and the order in revision by the District Judge in view of Section 43(2)(m) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer had granted permission to institute the suit. The revision was dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the needs of the tenant have not been compared with those of the landlord and there is no finding on the basis of such comparison that the need of the landlord is greater than that of the tenant. There appears to be merit in this contention. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer, while considering the needs of the tenant held that he had a share in a house left by his father and that he along with his step-mother had inherited the same, and therefore the tenant could not be deemed to be a person without any accommodation. The other ground given by the officer is that there are earning members in the tenant''s family and all of them with their joint income can take a house at higher rent. There is however, no finding that the need of the landlord is greater than that of the tanant.

The learned Additional District Judge has gone even a step back. He has only recorded the finding that there was house No. 59/14 in Nachghar, which stood previously in the name of the father of the tenant and was admittedly in the possession of his step-mother. On this basis he found that the tenant can have a share in the same. Even if this finding is accepted it would only mean that the tenant has a share in a house which is not in his possession but in the possession of his step-mother, and that he can file a suit for partition and obtain possession over a share. Mere ownership of property is not sufficient to fulfil the needs of a citizen. For the purpose of residence he needs immediate actual possession of the property.

Further, there is no finding by the Additional District Judge that the need of the landlord to have the additional accommodation was greater than the need of the tenant to occupy the building. It is thus apparent that he has not applied his mind to the relevant consideration, and has not recorded the necessary findings.

In the result, the petition is allowed, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge in revision is quashed and he is directed to readmit the revision to its original number and decide it afresh in accordance with law. Parties will bear their own costs.