- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. This petition under Ar ticle 226, Constitution of India, arises out of release proceedings initiated by Smt. Rani Tandon (impleaded as Respondent No. 3 in the petition), who had filed release application dated 28th August, 1989 (An nexure-1 to the Writ Petition) before the Prescribed Authority/respondent No. 2 under Section 21, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act' ).
(2.) RELEASE application was filed, briefly stated, on the ground that she was owner/landlord of the disputed non-residential premises No. 58/17, Nachghar, Neelwali Gali behind Birhana Road, Kan-pur Nagar wherein petitioner Sardar Sur jeet Singh was tenant at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. The accommodation in the tenancy of the petitioner comprises of one room measuring 20'9"x18" (as mentioned in para 4 of the petition ). It was contended that the husband of the landlord was a practicing Advocate, apart from that her son (Atul Tandon), daughter-in-law (Smt. Manjula Tandon) and grand- daughter (Km. Akansha Tandon) live with her. It was also stated that Atul Tandon had varied interest and had vast knowledge of different fields like Indology, Journalism,' Writing and Publication, etc. It was also mentioned that he had experience of pub lication and of writing books, but due to paucity it was not possible to establish her son who intended to carry on business of press by installing an Offset Machine, etailed facts in this respect have been , given in the release application itself and need not be repeated. A detailed written statement was filed (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition ). The Prescribed Authority, after par ties were given opportunity of leading evidence in support of their respective cases and were heard, allowed the release application vide judgment and order dated 18th July, 1995. The Prescribed Authority, after careful scrutiny of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the need dis closed by the landlady was genuine and bona fide and in case rejection of the release application landlady was to suffer more and, consequently, factor of com parative hardship was in her favour. Prescribed Authority granted Rs. 600 as compensation in lieu of dispossession of the tenant and tenant was directed to deliver possession within two months (An nexure 3 to the Writ Petition ).
(3.) FEELING aggrieved tenant filed Rent Appeal No. 131 of 1995 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition ). The Appellate Authority, after hearing parties, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated llth May, 2000 (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition ). Not being satisfied, tenant-petitioner has filed this petition against the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 18th July, 1995 (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition) and llth May, 2000 (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition ). On behalf of landlady (contesting Respondent No. 3 ). Caveat application was filed by Shri Rajesh Tandon, Advocate. Learned Counsels for the parties agree that this petition may be finally decided (without requiring for counter-af fidavit) on the basis of the existing material on the record of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, decided final ly at the admission stage.;