- (1.) This is landlady's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings for release under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The property in dispute is the ground floor of house No. 122/181 Sarojini Nagar, Kanpur. Opposite party No. 3 is the tenant in the said premises. The petitioner, as I have already stated, is the landlady. An application under Section 21 of the Act was moved on the ground that for reason of old age, illness of the heart and consequently original pain she require the accommodation bonafide for her personal use. Other circumstances were also set up to establish her bonafide need in regard to the grandson of the petitioner as she has only daughter and no other children. This application was contested by opposite party No. 3. Ultimately the Prescribed Authority allowed the application on 19th August, 1978. The Prescribed Authority recorded a categorical finding of fact that the petitioner is suffering from ill health, she has heart trouble and as such her case for living on the ground floor and further her want to keep her grandson with her appeared to be bonafide and genuine. The Prescribed Authority further recorded a finding that comparing the hardship the petitioner will be put to greater hardship in case the accommodation is not released to her. Aggrieved by the decision of the Prescribed Authority dated 19th August, 1978 an appeal was filed by opposite party No. 3 before the District Judge. The appeal was allowed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur by judgment dated 25th May, 1979. The appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25th May, 1979, by means of the present petition in this Court.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged firstly that the finding in regard to bonafide need is vitiated in law as the appellate authority has wrongly held that the documents filed in support of the illness of the petitioner had not been proved by the petitioner. He also urged that material evidence has not been considered by the appellate authority in respect of this finding before reversing the order of the Prescribed Authority. The second submission of the learned counsel is that in regard to the question of hardship the appellate authority has wrongly proceeded on the footing that the petitioner seeks benefit of Explanation (i) to Section 21 of the Act. Further the appellate authority has misread the statement of P.W. 1 Sri Jai Shanker Tewari, the clerk of the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, who had come to prove the veracity of the sanctioned plan in favour of opposite party No. 3 for constructing a building on premises No. 133/134, Transport Nagar, Kanpur. He has also urged in this connection that an affidavit had been filed in the Court below specifically to the effect that Devendra Singh, the son of opposite party No. 3, who is also alleged to be occupying the premises in dispute, has already shifted to a spacious accommodation in premises No. 115/820, Ranjit Nagar, Kanpur, and this was a relevant consideration for examining the question of hardship.
(3.) In my opinion the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are well founded.;