- (1.) Heard Sri R.P. Singh learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri D.C. Jain, learned Counsel for the Respondents. Controversy in the present case relates to House No. Q 690 Mohalla Kanoon Goyan, district Barabanki under the tenancy of Petitioner in regard to which Sri B.N. Verma/opposite party No. 3/landlord moved a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act') on the ground that he has to retire from service on 31.7.2001 after attaining the age of superannuation and after retirement he has to vacate the building which has been provided to him in official capacity. Thereafter he want to live in the premises in question as he has no other premises in his possession.
(2.) In para-10 of the release application it has been stated that the family of the applicant consist of his wife two daughters and one son and other are co-owners/landlords of the premises in question had no objection if the same be released in his favour.
(3.) Accordingly, a P.A. Case No. 3 of 2001 (B.N. Verma v. Onkar Nath Srivastava) registered before prescribed authority/Civil Judge(Junior Division) Brabanki in order to decide the controversy in question has framed three issues were framed namely: (1) Kya Prarthi vividit makan ka malik hai tatha unke evam vipakshi ke madhya kiraeydari ka sambandh hai? (2) Kya prarthijan ki avashakta sadbhawana poorvak ha? (3) Kya prarthijan ki tulnatmak kathinai vipakshi se adhik hai? By order dated 22.2.2010 (Annexure No. 2) prescribed authority allowed release application holding therein that the need of applicant is more genuine in comparison to the tenant. Further, finding has also been recorded by the prescribed authority that since the date of moving of release application, no effort has been made by the tenant to search the alternative accommodation and he has not adduced any evidence in this regard.;