Jagdish Singh Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
tenancy - eviction for purpose of residence of landlord's dependent - section 21(1) (a) of u.p. urban buildings (regulation of letting, rent and eviction) act, 1972 - application filed for getting premises vacated for purpose of residence of landlord's daughter-in-law - daughter-in-law a family member liable to be maintained by landlord - valid ground for filing application. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. orderk.c. agrawal, j.1. this writ petition is directed against the judgment of the additional district judge, dehradun dated l-2-1978.2. the only ground pressed in the writ petition was that the courts below committed an error in holding that the need of a daughter-in-law could be a basis for an application filed under section 21 of u. p. act no. 13 of 1972.3. clause (a) of section 21 of u. p. act no. 13 of 1972 lays down that if a building is bona fide required by a landlord either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction for occupation by himself or any member of his family the release may be made to him. the word 'family' has been defined in section 3 (g) of the said act. 'family' in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means his or her;--(i) spouse,(ii) male lineal descendants,(iii) such parents, grand parent and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant as may have been normally residing with him or her and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building.'it is clear from a conjoint reading of section 21 along with section 3 (g) that an application under section 3 (sic) (section 21 (1) (a)?) can be filed by a landlord for the need of a family member relating to whom he is liable to maintain.4. for the purposes of finding out the liability of a father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law reference may be made to section 19 of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956. under this section a hindu wife whether married before or after the commencement of this act is entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law. section 3 of the said act defines the word 'maintenance' including the right of residence. accordingly, s. d. bahuguna, who was the father-in-law of shrimati rekha bahuguna was liable to maintain her and to provide her a house.5. it has come in evidence that she required the premises for her residence. the learned counsel attempted to challenge the said finding on the ground that as the accommodation available with respondent no. 1 was sufficient, the application ought to have been rejected on that ground. the submission cannot be accepted. the finding recorded by the learned additional district judge was that as she did not have any accommodation to live with her children she had to live in a hostel. in view of this finding the submission of the learned counsel that s. d. bahuguna could accommodate shrimati rekha bahuguna in his house cannot be accepted.6. in the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. the petitioner is granted three months' time to vacate the premises.

Judgment:
ORDER

K.C. Agrawal, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Dehradun dated l-2-1978.

2. The only ground pressed in the writ petition was that the courts below committed an error in holding that the need of a daughter-in-law could be a basis for an application filed under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

3. Clause (a) of Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 lays down that if a building is bona fide required by a landlord either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction for occupation by himself or any member of his family the release may be made to him. The word 'family' has been defined in Section 3 (g) of the said Act. 'Family' in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means his or her;--

(i) spouse,

(ii) male lineal descendants,

(iii) such parents, grand parent and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant as may have been normally residing with him or her and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building.'

It is clear from a conjoint reading of Section 21 along with Section 3 (g) that an application under Section 3 (sic) (Section 21 (1) (a)?) can be filed by a landlord for the need of a family member relating to whom he is liable to maintain.

4. For the purposes of finding out the liability of a father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law reference may be made to Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Under this section a Hindu wife whether married before or after the commencement of this Act is entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law. Section 3 of the said Act defines the word 'maintenance' including the right of residence. Accordingly, S. D. Bahuguna, who was the father-in-law of Shrimati Rekha Bahuguna was liable to maintain her and to provide her a house.

5. It has come in evidence that she required the premises for her residence. The learned counsel attempted to challenge the said finding on the ground that as the accommodation available with respondent No. 1 was sufficient, the application ought to have been rejected on that ground. The submission cannot be accepted. The finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge was that as she did not have any accommodation to live with her children she had to live in a hostel. In view of this finding the submission of the learned counsel that S. D. Bahuguna could accommodate Shrimati Rekha Bahuguna in his house cannot be accepted.

6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The petitioner is granted three months' time to vacate the premises.