Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition is preferred by the tenant challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 23.3.2010 passed by the appellate Court/Addl. District Judge-13, Kanpur in Rent Appeal No. 66 of 2009, Suryapal Singh v. Shashi Prabha Srivsstava and others, as well as the judgment and order dated 24-5-2001 passed by the aforesaid appellate authority appended as Annexure No. 16 and 17 respectively to the writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid order on the ground that the orders are illegal. The facts culled out from the record are that the landlord field release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as Rent Case No. 30 of 2004 for release of the portion in the tenancy of the tenant consisting of one room, Court yard, latrine and bathroom situated on the ground floor of the premises No. 109/231 Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The aforesaid accommodation was given on rent @ Rs.100/- p.m. The release application was filed by the landlord on the ground that he is aged about 65 years and that he and his wife are senior citizens and his mother is very old aged about 90 years; that all the three persons were suffering from old age diseases such as arthritis and high blood pressure and as their movement were restricted due to aforesaid disease, they require ground floor accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner. It was also averred in the release application that the landlord has only one daughter and there is no one except her to look after them as such she is living with her family along with them which consist of four persons he. son-in- law of the landlord, daughter and two sons. Three brothers and the two sisters of the landlord also frequently visit the landlord for residing with him alongwith their family in summer vacation and on festive occasions but as there are only three rooms on the first floor it is insufficient for the landlord as the landlord requires at least several rooms. The need for additional accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner is genuine and bona fide. The tenant filed his written statement denying the allegations in the application inter alia that originally the need set up by the landlord was of seven rooms including one room for his mother, who has since deceased i.e. after her death now six rooms are required by the landlord and as there are three rooms already in his possession, only three more additional rooms are required and that the landlord has much more accommodation in the concerned premises than what is revealed by him in the release application for the reasons that the landlord has two more houses in district Kanpur itself.
(3.) IT appears that the tenant suggested in his written statement that the landlord has two rooms in his possession on the ground floor whereas in fact he had only in possession of one room behind the shop of the petitioner in which the landlord is doing his business; that the tenant has described the portion of mezzanine floor as one very big hall. An affidavit appears to have been filed by the landlord (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) in which he clarified the portion wrongly described by the tenant. An application was also filed by the landlord for issuing advocate commission before the Prescribed Authority in order to verify the actual position of the portion in possession of the landlord, which was objected by the tenant and the application remain undecided about more than three years compelling the landlord to withdraw the application on 23-7-2009 so that the matter may be heard on merits.;