- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. The instant writ peti tion is by landlady seeking prayer for quashing the order dated 7-1-1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, respondent No. 2 and the order dated 22-12-1994 passed by the then 8th Additional District Judge, Kanpur, respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE landlady Smt. Joginder Kaur since deceased, moved an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the release of premises No. 118/103 (6) shop No. 7/14, Bamba Road, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur against joint tenants respondent Nos. 3 and 4 alleging therein that the landlady was an aged lady and was being looked after and supported by Sri Satvir Singh, her daughter's son. THE premises in question was set out to respon dents for a short period and she with a view to settle her grand-son Satvir Singh who was then under training of Chartered Ac countancy required the premises for set ting up his office. It was further alleged that the respondents were affluent persons as such they would not suffer any hardship in case they were evicted. It was also as serted in the affidavit in support of the application that the landlady's son was separate from her and she did not have good relation with him, as such only Satvir Singh was helping and looking after her. It was also asserted that tenants had other accommodation with them and they would not suffer any hardship if they were asked to vacate the accommodation in question. The tenant respondents denied the averments made in the release application. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 7-1-1985 rejected the release application observing that it was not estab lished that the landlady was dependent upon Satvir Singh on the basis of state ment given in SCC Suit No. 1/80 filed by the landlady for ejectment of respondents No. 3 and 4 on the ground of default. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the landlady filed appeal under Section 22 of the Act and the same has also been dismissed by respondent No. 1 by the order dated 22-12-1994. It maybe relevant to mention here that during the pendency of appeal, landlady Joginder Kaur died and the petitioner Smt. Gurinder Kaur has been substituted in her place.
(3.) THE Court has heard Sri P. N. Saxena for the petitioner and Sri Radhey Shyam for the contesting respondents No. 3 and 4. It was submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that while rejecting the release application, the lower Appellate Authority has erroneously held that since Satvir Singh was not covered by the definition of 'family' as envisaged under Section 3 (g) of the Act, the release application was not maintainable in respect of his need totally ignoring the fact that the release was not sought on the ground of Satvir Singh being a family member of the landlady but the same was sought on the ground that the landlady was totally de pendent upon Satvir Singh and as such she had a right to ask for the release of accom modation in question for setting up office for her grand-son Satvir Singh. This aspect of the matter was totally ignored by the lower appellate authority. It was further argued that the lower appellate authority has erroneously held that it was not proved from evidence that the landlady was de pendent upon Satvir Singh totally ignoring the evidence led by the landlady on the said issue. It was further argued that the lower appellate authority has observed that even the need of Satvir Singh extinguished as he has shifted to Punjab but while coming to the said conclusion the lower appellate authority based its finding on the affidavit of respondent Dr. Sachdeva ignoring the material fact that Satvir himself had filed affidavit denying the allegation of his having shifted to Punjab. There were other affidavits also to support the landlady's case that Satvir Singh was still living with the petitioner. In short the argument of the petitioner's Counsel has been that the finding of respondent No. 1 that Satvir Singh was not living with Smt. Joginder Kaur was based on non-consideration of evidence adduced by the petitioner and after the death of Smt. Joginder Kaur the petitioner has merely stepped into the shoes of Smt. Joginder Kaur and thus the need of Smt. Joginder Kaur would con tinue to exist, as such the findings of respondent No. 1 suffered with manifest error of law. It was also submitted that there was overwhelming evidence to the effect that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were running their clinic from premises No. 118/91, Kanpur and no reason has been given in support of the finding recorded contrary to landlady's assertion. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on some decisions of this Court in support of his argument.;