U.S.Tripathi, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for Issuing of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.11.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 to issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to deliver the vacant possession of the portion of premises in suit and to pass any other further order which the Court may deem fit and proper.
(2.) The petitioner is owner landlady of premises No. 108/129, Sisamau Bazar, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The husband of respondent No. 2 was a tenant in one room and one kothari of the said house on monthly rental of Rs. 15.65 p. The petitioner moved an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) against Ram Dhani Mishra, husband of respondent No. 2, for release of the premises in his tenancy for her personal need on the ground that he was running Ayurvedic Medicine shop in the room in question. He was aged about 65 years and was unable to do the said business. Sri Ram Dhani Mishra died on 29.9.1991 and respondent No. 2 was impleaded, being his widow and legal representative. It was further alleged that the respondent No. 2 was not doing any business in the room in question and was using the same for her residence. Manoj Kumar, the grandson of the petitioner was unemployed and had no proper accommodation for running his business. The petitioner, therefore, heeded the premises in question under occupation of respondent No. 2 for settling her grandson Manoj Kumar in business. She was also ready to remit two years rent in favour of respondent No. 2. The petitioner, therefore, bona fidely and genuinely needed the premises in question for her personal need and balance of hardship was also in her favour.
(3.) The respondent No. 2 contested the above application mainly on the ground that the petitioner alone was not owner landlady of premises in question and she had only half share in it. The remaining half share belonged to Parmanand, the real brother of Jagnath Prasad, husband of the petitioner, who had adopted one Pankaj. The petitioner wrongly got the premises in question mutated in her name exclusively. The appeal filed by Pankaj was pending in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court. It was further contended that there were other three shops in the premises in question which the petitioner got vacated from Mahendra and grandson of the petitioner was also running shop in the premises in question. Manoj Kumar did not need any other shop and trie need of petitioner was not bona fide and genuine.;