Ran Vijai Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Iqbal Ahmad learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kuldeep Saxena learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.) THROUGH this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 20.2.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 9 Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 58 of 2004 as well as judgment and order dated 20.7.2004 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in P.A. Case No. 57 of 1999 (Smt. Chhama and Ors. v. Ajay Katiyar and Anr.). Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the orders dated 20.2.2003 and 09.7.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority. Vide order dated 09.07.2002 petitioner's application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for spot inspection was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not serious to pursue this application as even after number of calls he has not appeared. Whereas vide order dated 20.02.2003 another application to appoint Advocate Commissioner was also rejected. It is thereafter vide order dated 20.07.2004 the Prescribed Authority has allowed the application of the respondents landlord to release the accommodation in dispute and vide order dated 20.02.2010 the appeal filed against the judgment of Prescribed Authority was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge. The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondents have filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1972) on the ground that there are eleven members in the family and they are living in one room. Out of eleven although the four persons are living at Delhi but they frequently visit to Kanpur. The petitioner happens to be tenant of one big room, one Kitchen, Store, Aangan, Varamda on the ground floor of the house and there are only four members in the respondents family, i.e., husband, wife and three kids. The original tenant was Late Sri Ram Kishan Katiyar and the present applicant petitioner is the son of late Ram Kishan Katiyar.
(3.) IN reply to the release application an objection was filed by the tenant denying the bonafide need of the respondents. It was contended that there are five members in the tenant's family and apart from that one daughter of late Ram Kishan Katiyar was married, but still living there. It was also contended that the landlord has desired to enhance the rent at Rs. 700/ - per month and when the tenant refused, the release application was filed. It was also contended that the objector is a mechanic and is hardly earning Rs. 2000/ - per month and in case release application is allowed, he will not be able to arrange the alternative accommodation. The genuineness of the need of the disputed accommodation was denied by the objector.;