Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SUNDER DEVI AND OTHERS versus DJ

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Sunder Devi And Others v. Dj - WRIT - A No. 632 of 1995 [2005] RD-AH 7201 (8 December 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.631 of 1995

Smt. Sundar Devi and others  Vs.  VIIIth A.D.J., Kanpur and another

And

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.632 of 1995

Smt. Sundar Devi and others  Vs.  VIIIth A.D.J., Kanpur and another

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel who represents both the respondents in both the writ petitions i.e. VIII A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar and R.C.&E.O., Kanpur Nagar.

Both these writ petitions have been filed by same landlords.  Landlords-petitioners are residing in an accommodation of three rooms one kitchen, common latrine and bathroom.  Two adjoining rooms were vacated by their tenants hence R.C.&E.O. declared vacancy of both the rooms. Petitioners filed release applications for both the rooms under Section 16 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.  The case giving rise to the first writ petition was registered as case no.1 of 1994 and the case giving rise to the second writ petition was registered as case no.126 of 1993 before R.C.&E.O./Additional City Magistrate II, Kanpur Nagar.  In both the cases R.C.&E.O. rejected the release applications through order dated 30.4.1994.  R.C.&E.O. wrongly mentioned that there were six or ten members in the family of the landlord.  In the release application copy of which is Annexure-1 to both the writ petitions number of family members was shown as sixteen. R.C.&E.O. has also wrongly held that married daughters had also been included in family members.  In the release application where number of family members was given only one daughter i.e. Jamuna Devi was shown to be aged about 28 years and Ram Prasad was shown as son in law.  First of all if son in law and daughter are staying alongwith the landlord  then their need is to be considered and secondly even if two persons are taken out from the number of family members, still there remained fourteen members in the family of the landlord.  Three or four rooms for a family of fourteen members cannot be said to be sufficient.  R.C.&E.O. has held that by earlier order dated 4.4.1994 one room had already been released in favour of the petitioners-landlords.  After release of the said room total rooms available to the landlords became four.  Four rooms for a family of fourteen or sixteen persons cannot be said to be sufficient.  Against the orders passed by R.C.&E.O. rejecting the release applications of the landlords, landlords filed revisions being rent revision no.65 of 1994 (related with first writ petition) and rent revision no.66 of 1994 (related with second writ petition).  VIIIth A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar dismissed both the revisions on 12.12.1994 hence these writ petitions by the landlords.  As held earlier four rooms cannot be said to be sufficient for family of fourteen or sixteen members.  Even otherwise concept of need under Section 16 of the Act where there is no sitting tenant and prospective allottee has got no say in the matter (vide Talib Hassan vs. Ist A.D.J. 1986 (1) A.R.C. 1) is quite different from the concept of bonafide need in release applications under Section 21 of the Act where interest of sitting tenant is also to be considered.

Accordingly, I am of the opinion that both the courts below committed an error of law by rejecting the release applications.

Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed.  Both the impugned orders are set-aside in both the writ petitions.  Both the release applications filed by the landlords are allowed.

8.12.2005

RS/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.