- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 4.4.2009 and 24.9.2009 by which the release application filed by the respondent-landlord has been allowed by both the Courts below.
(2.) The respondent-landlord filed a release application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the petitioner with the allegation that they are tenants of the disputed accommodation since about 18 years at present rent of Rs. 300 per month but they are bad payments. It was further alleged that when the premises was let out the family was small but now the son is married with children and the need arose for at least 8 rooms. It was contended with the allegation that the landlord had two houses, one situated in Durgawari Chowk where the landlord is staying and the other where the petitioner and other tenants were living. The landlord has a small family and he was no need for additional accommodation and in case of release, the petitioner would suffer greater hardship. Both the Courts below after considering the bona fide need and comparative hardship of the parties, allowed the release application.
(3.) It is urged that there are other rooms and shops available in the disputed building and the petitioner was in possession of only one room and she has no other accommodation and therefore, the release order is vitiated.;