Deep Chandra Jeneja vs Lajwanti Kathuria (Dead) By Lrs

Facts, in brief, leading to the origin of this case, are as under:-

The facts narrated hereinbefore are not in dispute to the extent that the landlady rented the demised premises to the appellant-tenant for residential purpose. It appears from the record that on 26.11.1982/27.11.1982 an application bearing R.C. No.67 of 1982 was filed by late Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria - landlady against the appellant-tenant for release of the demised premises. The said application was dismissed by the prescribed authority pre-dominantly on the ground that the 8 premises earlier vacated by some tenants were not utilised by the landlady for the use and occupation of her family members, but in fact those were let out to new tenants. However, the appeal filed by the landlady against the impugned order of the prescribed authority was allowed by the Appellate Authority on 21.05.1983, whereby the appellant- tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises and shift to an alternate accommodation being offered by the landlady. It was also ordered that in case the appellant-tenant failed to vacate the premises in question within the stipulated period, the landlady would get possession of the accommodation through Court proceedings. The appellant-tenant submitted that the landlady did not provide the alternative accommodation in terms of the order of the Appellate Authority and allowed the stalemate to continue. The landlady filed second release application which was registered Rent Case No.18 of 2001 on the file of the prescribed authority, Kanpur Nagar. From the pleadings of the parties, both the prescribed authority and the Appellate Authority have noted that the landlady at the time of filing of the release 9 application in the year 2001 was residing in the same house with her elder son, Satish Kathuria, his educated wife Smt. Namita and her grandsons Abhishek, Rajat and grand- daughter Karishma and younger son Joginder Kathuria, his educated wife Smt. Rajani, grand-daughter Tanu; her married daughter Smt. Neelam Khanna, son-in-law Manish Khanna and their daughters Kum. Kirti and Kum. Neha. She filed affidavit in support of her release application stating inter alia that her elder son is a Contractor/Builder, and he needs separate room for his educated wife and children who are studying in convent school; she needed room for her second son Joginder Kathuria, an Advocate and his educated wife and daughter and separate accommodation for her married daughter, son-in-law and their children who have frequently been paying visits to her house because of her old age. She also stated that she needed one room for her old lady friends, one room for prayer purpose and one room to be used as a Museum to preserve some articles of her late husband. She stated that the appellant-tenant took the demised premises on rent in July 1972 with clear understanding that being a 10 member of Indian Air Force, he would be transferred from his place of posting within a period of 3 to 4 years and then he would vacate the premises forthwith. The appellant-tenant retired in the year 1984 and thereafter he started running a small provision store in the name and style of `Juneja Provision Store'. Rajiv Juneja, the elder son of the appellant- tenant, is doing construction work in the name of M/s Juneja Engineering and also doing the business of chemical sale and purchase in one portion of House No.229 Patel Nagar, Shanker Nagar. He is living in rented accommodation along with his wife and children at 140-C Ramgali, Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur, where he is in occupation of three rooms, one bathroom, latrine, kitchen and verandah. He is also doing travel agency business in the name of Juneja Travels at Pardemanpura, Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur. It was stated that Ajay Juneja, the second son of the appellant-tenant, is a teacher in Virendra Swaroop Education Centre and his wife is doing some business and they are living in House No. 124A/272, Block 11, Govind Nagar, Kanpur, having five rooms, latrine, bathroom, kitchen, verandah and courtyard. 11

The prescribed authority, on assessment of the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant- tenant has failed to establish that the landlady had let out some portions of the house to the new tenants on higher rent. The prescribed authority stated in its order that the landlady has filed on record Paper No.28 in which residential address of the appellant-tenant is mentioned as 1A, Ghaoo Khera, and other Paper Nos.29, 30, 31 and 32 also reveal the same address of the appellant-tenant. On the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the prescribed authority came to the conclusion that the appellant-tenant is residing with his son Vijay Juneja and his family members. 14 The averments of the landlady in her eviction application that the appellant-tenant has got House No.140-C Ramgali, Harjinder Nagar, 220, Patel Nagar, 1/382 N-2 Road, Harjinder Nagar, has been supported by Ashok Kumar and Rakesh Kumar in their affidavits. On comparative scrutiny of the statements pleaded by both the parties in their pleadings and supported by their evidence, the prescribed authority has noticed that in the Voter List Paper Nos. 45 and 46 for the year 1995-99 name of Ajay Juneja, son of the appellant- tenant, has not been shown as occupant of premises No.124A/272, Block 11, Govind Nagar, as contended by the appellant-tenant in his written statement and deposition in the affidavit. In fact, Ajay Juneja at the relevant time, was residing at house No. 251 and later on he shifted to premises No. 124A/272. The appellant-tenant, during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, has not made any attempt to secure alternate accommodation and he has been found living with other members of the family in some other house and the prescribed authority as also the Appellate Authority on scrutiny of the evidence have concluded that House 15 No.124A/272 was owned by the father of the appellant-tenant, which was transferred in the name of Ajay Juneja, son of the appellant-tenant, by executing a collusive Will with clear intention to show that the appellant-tenant does not own any house in Kanpur City and in order to frustrate the need of the landlady. Both the courts below recorded concurrent findings of facts that the appellant-tenant and his family members have got separate accommodation in Kanpur City and on the basis of the evidence on record, the requirement of the accommodation of the landlady is bona fide and genuine and the comparative hardship also is more pressing to the landlady in comparison to the appellant-tenant. In that view of the matter, the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant-tenant on the premises of concurrent findings of facts.

Having regard to the well-reasoned concurrent findings and reasoning recorded by the prescribed authority and the Appellate Authority, which are affirmed by the High Court in writ petition, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment warrants no interference inasmuch as no illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction could be shown before us by the appellant-tenant.

In the result, for the above-stated reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed, accordingly.

However, considering the period for which the premises in question was in the occupation of the appellant-tenant, time is granted till 31.06.2009 to vacate the premises, subject to filing of an affidavit by way of usual undertaking before the prescribed authority within a period of four weeks to deliver the vacant possession on or before the stipulated date. There will be no order as to costs.