N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) Respondent No. 3 Smt. Munni Devi is the landlord of premises No. 26/45 Birhana Road, Kanpur, of a portion of which the petitioner is the tenant. An application was made by respondent No. 3 in August, 1976, for release of the aforesaid accommodation under section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case which was set up by respondent No. 2 in this application was that she had three sons, Rajesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, out of whom Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar had completed their education and that she wanted to settle them in business. The application was contested by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the three sons of respondent No. 3 and her husband Daulat Ram were carrying on a sweatmeat shop in partnership in the name of Budhson Sweet House, that Rajesh Kumar, the eldest son of respondent No. 3 was also working with his father Daulat Ram in another business of manufacturing exhaust fans and water pumps carried on by him in the name of Universal Corporation, and consequently it was not right for respondent No. 3, to contend that her three sons needed to be settled in business. As seen above it was apparent from the release application itself that Sanjay Kumar, the youngest of the sons of respondent No. 3, was still a student and was not stated to have completed his education in the year 1976 when the application for release was filed. From paragraph 4 of the replication filed by respondent No. 3 in reply to the written statement of the petitioner it was stated that Rajesh Kumar viz. ; the eldest of the sons of respondent No. 3, left his studies in or about 1973, that Rakesh Kumar passed Intermediate examination in 1978 and Sanjay Kumar passed High School examination in the same year. From this paragraph it further appears that even Rakesh Kumar had not completed his studies in the year 1976 when the application for release was made and averment to the contrary in the said application does not appear to be accurate. The release application, however, came up for decision after about four years and seems to have been decided on the basis of the facts as they existed on the date of its decision. Indeed the petitioner bad filed its written statement in April, 1980 the replication of respondent No. 3 was filed in July, 1980 and issues seen to have been framed by the Prescribed Authority thereafter. Both the parties went to trial knowing each others case as put up at the stage of its decision and produced evidence on that footing. After hearing the parties the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, allowed the application for release on 2nd Decmber, 1980 on the findings that need of the landlord-respondent No. 2 was bona fide and that greater hardship would be caused to her in the event of the release application being dismissed than the hardship likely to be caused to the petitioner in the event of the said application being allowed. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur. respondent No. 1, 20th May, 1981. It is these two orders which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
(2.) It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, and the Additional District Judge, respondent No. 1, have both committed a manifest error of law in ignoring vital aspects of the case as well as relevant evidence material for the decision of the case. It has also been urged that burden of proof in regard to some crucial points has erroneously been placed by these authorities on the petitioner.
(3.) Having heard counsel for the parties at some length I am of opinion that the impugned orders for the reasons to be given shortly cannot be sustained.;