High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. M.K. Srivastaa v. R.C.E.O. - WRIT - A No. 8660 of 1991  RD-AH 1726 (22 July 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8660 of 1991
Smt. Mithilesh Kumari v. The Rent Control Eviction Officer, Allahabad and another.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1591 of 1994
Smt. Mithilesh Kumari v. XII Addl. District Judge, Allahabad
Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.
The petitioners and the contesting respondents in both the writ petitions are the same. The premises in dispute is also the same and therefore, both the petitions are being heard and decided together by a common judgment.
Writ Petition No. 8660 of 1991 is directed against the order rejecting the release application of the petitioner under section 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereas Writ Petition No. 1591 of 1994 is directed against the order rejecting the release application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act and the appeal against the same.
In both the writ petitions despite notices, no counter affidavit has been filed. In short the facts are that Sri Ram Prasad Verma was a tenant of the premises in dispute comprising of first floor accommodation of house no. 15 -B, Belli Road, Allahabad. Sri Ram Prasad Verma vacated the said premises having shifted to a newly constructed house in Muhalla Raj Roop Pur. However while vacating the house the tenant Ram Prasad Verma inducted one RamJi Yadav. The petitioner had filed release application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act setting up a need for her brother to come and stay with her and look after her and her children who are still minor and as her husband has already died and she had no other male member to support her and her children. Both the courts below have rejected her release application on the ground that she had alternative accommodation in Mohalla Colonelganj where she would easily live. It would be note worthy that landlady cannot be compelled to live in any particular accommodation and all the more where the landlady being a widow having minor children would feel in secure and lonely living in that house. This aspect of the matter has not been examined by the courts below and they have only proceeded on the assumption that landlady already had alternative accommodation and therefore, did not require the premises in dispute bonafide.
During the pendency of the this petition, the person who had been inducted into the premises in dispute by the outgoing tenant has also handed over the possession to the landlady in Sept. 2001 and this fact has been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit.
In view of the above, the Writ Petition No.1591 of 1994 deserves to be allowed and the premises in dispute stands released in favour of the landlady.
Further in view of the findings recorded above, and the premises having already been released and possession delivered to the landlady, the Writ Petition No.8660 of 1991 loses its significance and the proceedings therein needs to be dropped and consigned to the record.
Accordingly, Writ Petition No.1591 of 1994 is allowed. The impugned judgments dated 27.12.1989 and 13.2.1991 are set aside and the release application is allowed. Further the Writ Petition No. 8660 of 1991 is disposed off with direction that proceedings for vacancy and release under section 12/16 of the Act be dropped and consigned
Both the writ petitions are decided as above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.