M.P.Singh - (1.) PETITIONER is the owner and landlady of house no. 48, Parmiyanpurwa, Khoura, Nawabganj, district Kanpur.
(2.) THE present writ petition arises out of the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 initiated by the petitioner. The dispute relates to a portion of the house which was let out to opposite party no. 2. The application for release was filed on the ground that the petitioner lives in a portion of the said house and the accommodation at her disposal comprises of two rooms, two varandas, open courtyard, bath-room, kitchen and roof. She had let out only one room to opposite party no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. The family of the petitioner consisted of herself, her husband, a married son, daughter-in-law and two unmarried grown-up daughters. She being a religious lady had installed deity in a room of the premises. She also owns 23 Bighas of agricultural land and in one room she stores grain for the whole year which is not available for residential purposes. Thus, the total accommodation left with her for residential purposes is only one room, measuring 19 x 12 feet on the first floor, which is quite insufficient to accommodate such a big family. The landlady further asserted that opposite party no. 2 was a Constable in Police-Force posted at Etawah. He could keep his family with him there.
(3.) THE said application was contested by the tenant (opposite party no. 2). He stated that the accommodation in his tenancy was more than one room as disclosed in the application. According to him he was in possession of one room, Varanda and open roof. He further stated that accommodation in possession of the landlady was quite sufficient. She did not need any additional accommodation. He was posted in Dacoity Operation Area where he could not keep his family with him. Further, there was no educational facilities at the place of his posting. His children aged 10, 8, 6 and 2 years respectively were receiving education in Adarsh Vidyalaya Niketan, Nawab- ganj, Kanpur. The prescribed authority, on a consideration of the evidence on record, allowed the release application holding :- (1) That the need of the landlady was bonafide and genuine; and (2) That greater hardship would be caused to the landlady in case the application was not allowed. ;