# Anil Kumar Singh v. IInd Addl. Distt. Judge Hardoi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1013
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-25
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1000074 of 2012
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-singh-v-iind-addl-distt-judge-hardoi-ors-48390
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Land Law - Tenancy - Bona-fide
need - Refusal of application for
release - The Uttar Pradesh Urban
Buildings
(Regulation
of
Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972 - Sections 3(g) &
21(1)(a).

Bona-fide need - The specific need that
the landlord set up has come to an end with
his life that the long course of these
proceedings have defeated by sheer lapse of
time. Even if a member of the landlord's
family, within the meaning of S.3(g) of the
Act were alive, the prayer for release could
have been considered because the landlord
had sought release for the purpose of his
residence and to set up his chamber. The
bona fide need for the purpose of the
landlord's residence would include the
interest of a person who was a member
of his family, particularly one who was
residing with the landlord, within the
meaning of S.3(g) of the Act. Here, the
landlord's wife was not staying with him and
upon his death, has not come forward to
seek substitution in his stead. (Para 22)
If the landlord's widow or a son had asked to
pursue release for the purpose of his/their
residence, being members of his family as
defined u/s 3(g) of the Act, they would be
entitled to maintain the release application. This
would be so because a member of the landlord's
family would be sharing the landlord's bona fide
need for residential purpose. Here, the heirs and
LRs who have come on record are the sons of
the landlord's brother and claim through a
testamentary disposition. Thus, if the heirs
and LRs of the landlord do have a case of
bona fide need of their own, it would be
generically different and unconnected to
the landlord's case, and in that case, they
would be free to pursue it by instituting
appropriate
proceedings
before
the
Prescribed Authority or other Court of
competent jurisdiction, as may be advised.
However, so far as the present writ petition is
concerned, no relief can be granted in favour of
the heirs and LRs of the landlord. (Para 23)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

## Text

5 All. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. IInd Addl. Distt. Judge Hardoi & Ors.
1013
(2022)05ILR A1013
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 1000074 of 2012
Rent Control No. 74 of 2012 (Old Number)

Anil Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
IInd Addl. Distt. Judge Hardoi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ganga Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Akhlaq Ali, Rajendra S. Kushwaha,
Sharad Pathak, Shyam Mohan

A. Land Law - Tenancy - Bona-fide
need - Refusal of application for
release - The Uttar Pradesh Urban
Buildings
(Regulation
of
Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972 - Sections 3(g) &
21(1)(a).

Bona-fide need - The specific need that
the landlord set up has come to an end with
his life that the long course of these
proceedings have defeated by sheer lapse of
time. Even if a member of the landlord's
family, within the meaning of S.3(g) of the
Act were alive, the prayer for release could
have been considered because the landlord
had sought release for the purpose of his
residence and to set up his chamber. The
bona fide need for the purpose of the
landlord's residence would include the
interest of a person who was a member
of his family, particularly one who was
residing with the landlord, within the
meaning of S.3(g) of the Act. Here, the
landlord's wife was not staying with him and
upon his death, has not come forward to
seek substitution in his stead. (Para 22)
If the landlord's widow or a son had asked to
pursue release for the purpose of his/their
residence, being members of his family as
defined u/s 3(g) of the Act, they would be
entitled to maintain the release application. This
would be so because a member of the landlord's
family would be sharing the landlord's bona fide
need for residential purpose. Here, the heirs and
LRs who have come on record are the sons of
the landlord's brother and claim through a
testamentary disposition. Thus, if the heirs
and LRs of the landlord do have a case of
bona fide need of their own, it would be
generically different and unconnected to
the landlord's case, and in that case, they
would be free to pursue it by instituting
appropriate
proceedings
before
the
Prescribed Authority or other Court of
competent jurisdiction, as may be advised.
However, so far as the present writ petition is
concerned, no relief can be granted in favour of
the heirs and LRs of the landlord. (Para 23)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against concurrent refusal of an application
for release under Section 21(1)(a) of The
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
(U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short 'the
Act') by both the Courts below.

2. An application for release was
moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act by
Anil Kumar Singh, seeking release of
House No. 167, situate at Mohalla Sarai
Thok Purvi, Pargana Bangar, Tehsil and
District Hardoi that was in the tenancy
occupation of Brijendra Pal Singh. The
release application was registered on the
file of the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge,
Hardoi as P.A. Case No. 11 of 1989. This
application was instituted way back in the
month
of August,
1989
before
the
Prescribed Authority by Anil Kumar Singh
1014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
alone, setting up a case of bona fide need
and comparative hardship in his favour.
Later on, Anil kumar Singh's father
Surendra Pal Singh was also impleaded as a
co-applicant, applicant no. 2 to the
application, in order to obviate certain
objections that Brijendra Pal Singh raised
about the right of Anil Kumar Singh to
maintain the proceedings on ground that it
was Anil Kumar Singh's father who was the
landlord and not Anil Kumar Singh.

3. Anil Kumar Singh passed away
pending this petition and his heirs and LRs,
to wit, Shitanshu Singh Parmar and
Priyanshu Singh Parmar have been brought
on record as petitioners nos. 1/1 and 1/2.
Anil Kumar Singh and his heirs and LRs
shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the
landlord', unless the context requires an
individual reference. Brijendra Pal Singh,
tenant, also passed away pending this
petition and his heirs and LRs too have
been brought on record. They are four in
number and arrayed as respondent nos. 3/1,
3/2, 3/3 and 3/4 to this petition. Brijendra
Pal Singh shall hereinafter be referred to as
'the tenant' which would include reference
to his heirs and LRs, unless the context
otherwise requires. In the latter case, the
tenant concerned shall be referred to by
name.

4. The landlord came up with a case
in his application for release that House
No. 161, situate at Mohalla Sarai Thok
Purvi, Pargana Bangar, Tehsil & District
Hardoi (for short 'the demised premises') is
a property of the landlord, his father
Surendra Pal Singh and brothers, who
constitute a Joint Hindu Family. The
landlord's father was the Karta of the Joint
Hindu Family and the tenant was in
occupation of the demised premises that
were let out by the landlord's father at a
monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. There was a
partition of the joint family and its
properties where the demised premises had
fallen to the landlord's share. The partition
was brought about on 10.05.1989 through a
family settlement. According to the family
settlement, the landlord had become the
owner of the demised premises and,
therefore, its landlord vis-a-vis the tenant.
The fact of this family settlement is well
within
the
tenant's
knowledge.
The
landlord's father, Surendra Pal Singh had
permitted him to reside in a part of his
house on condition that he could stay there
until time that amicably or by taking
recourse to legal proceedings, he got the
demised premises vacated.

5. The landlord further pleaded that
he hails from a respectable and educated
family and is an Advocate practicing at
the District Court, Hardoi. He is in bona
fide need of the demised premises for his
residence and that of his family members,
besides establishing his chamber. It was
also asserted by the landlord that the part
of his father's house that he was
occupying with the latter's permission is
not sufficient for his needs and he is
facing hardship. The landlord has in his
family his wife, who does not get along
with her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law,
resulting in squabbles in the family. In
turn, the landlord has to suffer the
resultant tension and anxiety, which
adversely impact his profession. It is also
pleaded by the landlord that he apprised
the tenant about the difficulties faced by
him
on
account
of
shortage
of
accommodation and the need for space to
establish his chamber. He requested the
tenant to vacate the demised premises.
The tenant initially agreed to vacate, but
later on, acting on the ill-advice of some
residents of the locality, refused.
5 All. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. IInd Addl. Distt. Judge Hardoi & Ors.
1015

6. The tenant then instituted Original
Suit no. 258 of 1989 before the Munsif
West, Hardoi for permanent injunction,
agitating the issue of his right to secure an
electricity connection in the demised
premises and indicating an apprehension of
forcible dispossession. By the aforesaid
acts of the tenant, it became evident that he
was not minded to vacate the demised
premises. The demised premises are located
on the Hardoi Bilgram Road and are
suitable for the landlord to establish his
chamber. The landlord further asserted that
he had a pressing need for release of the
demised premises. The tenant, on the other
hand, had no such need. He was employed
as a Teacher with the Raja Rookamagarh
Inter College and was well-off. He was in a
position to buy land any time and construct
his own house thereon. Two of the tenant's
daughters
were
married
during
the
pendency of the appeal arising from the
order refusing release. The son and the
daughter-in-law
of
the
tenant
were
employed in government jobs on good
positions. They stayed with the tenant. All
three of them together have an income of
more than Rs. 20,000/- per month.

7. It must be remarked here that this
part of the assertion in the application for
release appears to have been brought in
through
amendment
made
during
proceedings of the Appeal. The further case
pleaded is that in the city of Hardoi, there
are lots of land and constructed houses
available under the Awas Vikas Yojana, any
of which the tenant was in a position to
buy. That apart, there are lots of houses
available for rent, which the tenant could
settle in according to his need. However,
the tenant has made no efforts to search for
an alternate accommodation. There is a
specific pleading brought in through
amendment in paragraph No. 10A of the
release application in the alternate to the
effect that in case the family settlement is
not accepted, bona fide need of Surendra
Pal Singh, the landlord's father and
applicant no. 2 to the release application,
may be considered in support of the case
for release.

8. The tenant filed a written statement
dated 15.11.1989. He generally denied the
landlord's case in the parawise reply, except
the fact asserted in paragraph no. 6 of the
application to the effect that the tenant had
instituted a suit. It was also not denied that
the tenant was a Teacher with the Raja
Rookamagarh Inter College, Hardoi. In the
additional pleas, the tenant came up with a
case that there was no landlord-tenant
relationship between him and the landlord.
The landlord was not the owner of the
demised premises and, therefore, the
release application at his instance was not
maintainable.
The
landlord's
father,
Surendra Pal Singh, was the owner and
landlord of the demised premises and the
tenant held the said premises on Surendra
Pal Singh's behalf. The tenant was let out
the demised premises pursuant to an order
of allotment dated 10.03.1967 by Surendra
Pal Singh. He was in occupation ever since.
The tenant paid rent to Surendra Pal Singh,
which he had paid up to the month of
October, 1989. The demised premises had
no electricity connection. The tenant
attempted to get one installed, but in
retaliation, the landlord's father attempted
to get the demised premises forcibly
vacated. This compelled the tenant to
institute Original Suit No. 258 of 1989
before the Court of the Munsif West,
Hardoi. Some injunction was granted in the
said suit irked over which Surendra Pal
Singh caused the present application for
release to be instituted setting up a false
case of a family settlement. The landlord's
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
father, Surendra Pal Singh had a house in
Hardoi built on a plot of 100 x 300 ft. The
house had 20-22 rooms. Surendra Pal Singh
had three members in his family, that is to
say, the landlord and his mother, that is to
say, Surendra Pal Singh's wife. The
landlord had no need for the demised
premises. He does not come to Court
everyday, but attends infrequently. Some
houses of his, the landlord's father has
recently got vacated from various tenants,
which he has let out again. By contrast, the
tenant had a family of eight members. He
had two daughters of marriagable age. The
tenant needed money in abundance to settle
his daughters' marriage. The tenant did not
have the necessary wherewithal to buy a
house or land and construct a house. The
tenant also pleaded that he would not get
another house in the city of Hardoi at a rate
as cheap as the demised premises. The
tenant had a greater need for the demised
premises whereas the landlord had none.

9. It was also asserted by the tenant
that once vacated, the demised premises
would be let out by the landlord at a
monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. It is for the said
reason that the landlord had instituted the
instant
proceedings
for
release
on
concocted facts. The further case of the
tenant is that there was no partition
between the landlord, his father and
brothers, and the demised premises have
not fallen to the landlord's share. The tenant
does
not
have
any
alternative
accommodation in the city of Hardoi
except the demised premises. In the event,
the demised premises were released, the
tenant would face immense hardship,
whereas
by
refusal
of
the
release
application, the landlord would not face
any. There is also a detail of the
accommodation available with the landlord,
which according to the tenant, he could
utilize to establish his chamber. It is on the
foot of all these facts that the tenant
resisted the landlord's application for
release. The landlord, in support of his
case, filed his own affidavit bearing Paper
No. 16 Aa, an affidavit of one Mohd. Ali,
Paper No. 11 Aa, an affidavit of one Zakir,
Paper No. 18 Aa and a rejoinder affidavit of
Anil Kumar Singh, the landlord. The tenant
filed his affidavits bearing Paper Nos. 28
Aa and 68 Aa, besides those of one Abid
and another Satendra Pal Singh, Paper Nos.
29 Aa and 69 Aa, respectively. On behalf of
the landlord, an affidavit of Surendra Pal
Singh, applicant no. 2, Paper No. 63 Aa
was also filed.

10. The Prescribed Authority, by its
judgment and order dated 09.10.1991,
dismissed the release application. The
aforesaid judgment was appealed by the
landlord to the District Judge of Hardoi,
sitting as the Appellate Authority, under
Section 22 of the Act. The Appeal was
registered on the file of the learned District
Judge as Rent Appeal No. 20 of 1991. The
said Appeal, upon assignment, came up for
determination before the learned Additional
District
Judge,
Second,
Hardoi
on
28.03.2020. The Appeal was dismissed and
the judgment of the Prescribed Authority
affirmed.

11. Aggrieved, this writ petition was
filed by the landlord on 10.05.2000 before
this
Court,
arraying
the
tenant
as
respondent no. 3 and Surendra Pal Singh,
the landlord's father and applicant no. 2 to
the release application as respondent no. 4.
Apparently, Surendra Pal Singh, respondent
no. 4 is a proforma party, as no relief has
been claimed against him.

12. No counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3, as
5 All. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. IInd Addl. Distt. Judge Hardoi & Ors.
1017
the record would show, though time was
granted to file a counter affidavit on
14.03.2019
and
17.04.2019
and
a
supplementary
counter
affidavit
on
17.07.2019 with a stop order. There is a
counter affidavit, however, on behalf of
respondent no. 4 dated 16.09.2000, which
is
obviously
one
by
the
proforma
respondent and not the tenant.

13. Heard Mr. Ganga Singh, learned
Counsel for the landlord and Mr. Sharad
Pathak, Advocate appearing for the tenant.

14. This Court must remark at this
stage that the parties addressed this Court
on the merits of their case, irrespective of
the fact that the landlord, who had set up
his need, passed away pending this petition.
His heirs and LRs who have been
substituted, urge the same case that Anil
Kumar Singh, the deceased-landlord had all
along pleaded. May be, if Anil Kumar
Singh were alive, for the need set up by
him
and
the
evidence
on
record,
conclusions
very
different
from
the
Authorities below could possibly have been
recorded. But, that is not to be. Here, the
landlord has not left behind a member of
his family within the meaning of Section
3(g) of the Act. There is considerable
quarrel about the issue whether the landlord
was unmarried, or was married but his wife
deserted him shortly after marriage, never
to come back again. The landlord has said
in his application for release that he was
married and had a wife, who did not get
along with his mother and sisters. The
tenant in his affidavit dated 11.09.1990
filed before the Prescribed Authority has
stated thus:

"7. यह भक भववाभदत मकान की कोई
आवश्यकता प्राथी अथवा उसके भपता को नही है
क्योभक उनके पास सूंलग्न नक्शा नजरी के
अनुसार मकाभनयत है तथा उनके पररवार में
मात्र 3, सदस्य सुरेन्द्र भसूंह एवूं उनकी पत्नी एवूं
पाथी स्वयूं रहता है तथा प्राथी की पत्नी र्ादी में
एक बार के बाद दुवारा किी हरदोई नही
आकर रही प्राथी स्वयूं खाना अपनी मााँ का
बनाया हुआ खाता है तथा प्राथी के माता भपता ने
अलग रहने का किी िी जोर नही भदया है
क्योभक उनकी सेवा स्वयूं प्राथी करता है।"

15. The landlord in his affidavit dated
22.09.1990
has
denied
the
aforesaid
assertion in the following terms:

"4- यह भक भवपक्षी का यह िी कथन
भक मुझ र्पथी की पत्नी उसके साथ नही रहती
है तथा मुझ र्पथी हरदोई में अभधवक्ता
व्यवसाय नही करता है भबलकुल गलत है।"

16. Surendra Pal Singh, the landlord's
father, in his affidavit dated 25.02.1991 has
stated:

"4- यह भक र्पथकताश के तीनोूं पुत्रोूं
की र्ाभदया हो गयी है तथा पररवार बढ जाने से
र्पथकताश व उसकी पत्नी व बहुओूं व पुत्रोूं में
अक्सर भववाद हो जाता था तथा उनमें वैमनस्ता
बढ रही थी अत: पाररवाररक र्ाूंभत व मान
मयाशदा बनाए रखने हेतु र्पथकताश एवूं
र्पथकताश की पत्नी तथा पुत्रोूं के मध्य भदनााँक
10-5-89 को मौन्धखक पाररवाररक समझौता हो
गया था और उक्त मौन्धखक पाररवाररक समझौता
की यादास्त हेतु एक मेंमोरेन्डस िी तहरीर भकया
गया था भजसकी नोटरी से प्रमाभणत फोटोूं कापी
र्पथकताश के समक्ष है तथा एक प्रभत प्राथी
अभनल कुमार द्वारा न्यायालय में दान्धखल की गयी
है जो र्ाभमल पत्रावली है।"

17. Pending this petition, the landlord
passed
away
on
12.08.2020
and
a
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
substitution application to bring on record
his heirs and LRs was moved by Sitanshu
Singh Parmar and Priyanshu Singh Parmar,
since allowed by this Court. The heirs and
LRs are the sons of the landlord's brother
and they claim on the basis of a will dated
19.06.2020 left by the deceased-landlord.
In paragraph no. 5 of the application for
substitution duly supported by an affidavit
of Sitanshu Singh Parmar, it has been
stated:

"5. That the petitioner during his
life time executed a registered Will in
favour of the applicants as they were taking
care of their uncle i.e. petitioner as such on
the basis of the registered Will dated
19.06.2020 applicants are only sole legal
heirs of deceased petitioner as such
applicants deserve to be substituted in place
of petitioner, as petitioner was issueless,
having no wife. True Photostat copy of the
registered Will dated 19.06.2020 is being
annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this
affidavit."

 (Emphasis by Court)

18.
 Apart
from
the
aforesaid
contention about the marital status of the
landlord, what is evident is that assuming
that the landlord was married at some point
of time, his widow never came forward to
seek substitution and allowed his nephews
to be substituted as the heirs and LRs. For
the limited purpose of the present petition,
therefore, it has to be held that the landlord
was married for a while, who had separated
from his wife early in life and the wife was
not staying with him at the time of his
death. Even if she had a subsisting
marriage that has not been severed by
divorce, entitling her to be substituted by
virtue of being a member of the landlord's
family, she has never come forward to
assert that right. Whosoever was the
landlord's wife, her existence is so obscure
that even her name has nowhere figured on
the record. The clinching point is that it is
the landlord's nephews who have come
forward to apply as his heirs and LRs
without objection from any quarter and
have been substituted on record. Therefore,
it is they who have to be heard as the ones
representing the landlord's interest in the
present proceeding for release.

19. Mr. Ganga Singh, learned Counsel
for the landlord submits that his heirs and
legal representatives have stepped into his
shoes and are entitled to pursue the
application for release in the same right as
the landlord. He submits that whatever
bona fide need the landlord had pleaded
would enure to the benefit of the legal
representatives who now represent him.

20. Mr. Sharad Pathak, learned
Counsel for the tenant submits that
whatever bona fide need was set up in
the release application, stands effaced,
because the landlord, pending this
petition,
has
passed
away.
It
is
submitted that the landlord was an
Advocate and required the demised
premises to establish his chamber. His
heirs and LRs are not entitled to pursue
the application for release on the basis
of the need set up by the landlord. It is
submitted that these proceedings must
be held to have outlived their purpose
and office and the heirs and LRs of the
landlord be required to institute fresh
proceedings on the basis of whatever
kind of bona fide need, if at all, they
wish to plead.

21.

This
Court
has
keenly
considered
the
rival
submissions
advanced by learned Counsel for both
parties.
5 All. Dr. Om Prakash Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1019

22. The specific need that the
landlord set up has come to an end with
his life that the long course of these
proceedings have defeated by sheer lapse
of time. Even if a member of the
landlord's family, within the meaning of
Section 3(g) of the Act were alive, the
prayer for release could have been
considered because the landlord had
sought release for the purpose of his
residence and to set up his chamber. The
bona fide need for the purpose of the
landlord's residence would include the
interest of a person who was a member of
his family, particularly one who was
residing with the landlord, within the
meaning of Section 3(g) of the Act. Here,
the landlord's wife was not staying with
him and upon his death, has not come
forward to seek substitution in his stead.

23. The heirs and LRs, who have been
substituted, claim on the basis of a
registered will dated 19.06.2020. It is the
case of the heirs and LRs themselves set
out in the affidavit that they have filed, in
support of the substitution application, that
they are the landlord's nephews. They are
the sons of his brother Vishnu Pal Singh.
No doubt, they have stepped into the
landlord's shoes, but the landlord's bona
fide need cannot enure to their benefit. If
the landlord's widow or a son had asked to
pursue release for the purpose of his/ their
residence, being members of his family as
defined under Section 3(g) of the Act, they
would be entitled to maintain the release
application. This would be so because a
member of the landlord's family would be
sharing the landlord's bona fide need for
residential purpose. Here, the heirs and LRs
who have come on record are the sons of
the landlord's brother and claim through a
testamentary disposition. Thus, if the heirs
and LRs of the landlord do have a case of
bona fide need of their own, it would be
generically different and unconnected to
the landlord's case. If the heirs and LRs of
the landlord have a case of bona fide need
as aforesaid, they would be free to pursue it
by
instituting
appropriate
proceedings
before the Prescribed Authority or other
Court of competent jurisdiction, as may be
advised. However, so far as the present writ
petition is concerned, no relief can be
granted in favour of the heirs and LRs of
the landlord.

24. In the result, subject to the above
clarification about the rights of heirs and
LRs of the landlord, this writ petition fails
and is dismissed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1019
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 8366 of 2017
along with
Writ A No. 32882 of 2019

Dr. Om Prakash Gupta & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Avinash Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Dynamic/Special Assured
Career Progression (SACP) - An exception
has been carved out for the Medical
Officers, PMHS while implementing SACP,
which in the opinion of the Court is
discriminatory, insofar as it excludes the
other Medical Officers practising medicine
in different streams. (Para 26, 28)