Anil Kumar - (1.) HEARD Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.S. Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 14.1.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Lucknow/ Appellate Authority allowing appeal filed by tenant/respondent, consequently rejecting petitioner's release application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the the U.P. Act 13 of 1972). In the instant case, controversy relates to shop measuring 10' X 20' situated at 488/66, Daliganj, Lucknow. On 23 October, 1997, petitioners/landlords moved a release application under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (Annexure-2), case as set up by the petitioners that the shop has been let out on monthly rent of Rs. 85/- as per written agreement dated 1.10.1965 by their father to Sri Chunni Lal Kapoor/tenant, after his death, opposite party Nos. 2 to 10 became tenants. Petitioner No. 1/Sri Ambrish has no other space except shop in dispute, from which he wants to do business of general merchant in order to carry out livelihood for his family consists as under: 1. Ambrish - petitioner/applicant 2. Smt. Madhu Havelia - wife of the applicant 3. Prince Havelia - son of the applicant 4.Km. Abhilasha Havelia - daughter of the applicant Respondents/tenants filed written statement, tenancy of shop not denied. However, it is pleaded that petitioners have six shops in ground floor of house No. 488/66, Daliganj, Lucknow, so their need is not bona fide in respect to shop in question.
(3.) FURTHER pleaded in written statement that petitioner No. 1 alongwith other co-landlords gave a consent for allotment of one door shop situated in ground floor of house No. 488/66, Daliganj, Lucknow accordingly allotted in favour of one Sri Satish Kumar as per provisions of Section 17(1 )(1) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 read with Rule 10(7) of the Rules. So, need of the petitioner No. 1 is not genuine and bona fide in comparison to their need, release application moved only to enhance rent of the shop, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, PA Case No. 68 of 1997 {Ambrish and others v. Bhuushan Lai Kapoor) registered before the Prescribed Authority/ACAM-lll, Lucknow allowed by judgment and order dated 15.9.2006 with observation that need of applicant/petitioner No. 1 is more genuine in comparison to the tenants/respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the O. P. Nos. 2 to 10 filed an appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (Rent Appeal No. 17 of 2006) allowed by appellate authority/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Lucknow. Hence, present writ petition has been filed.;