Sudhir Chandra Verma J. - (1.) THE petitioner who is a tenant of the second floor of House No. 74/258 -B, Ranjeet Purwa, Kanpur, has challenged the order dated 2 -3 -1984 passed by the XI Additional District Judge, Kanpur, under Section 22 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The landlord moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act with the allegation that he is living on the third floor of House No. 74/258 -B, Ranjeet Purwa, Kanpur and has in his occupation two rooms, kitchen, a small store, latrine and bathroom and has five family members which include two sons aged 19 and 17 years and an old mother of 70 years of age. The landlord needs the disputed accommodation as the accommodation at his disposal is insufficient for the requirement of the family members. It has also been alleged that the tenant does not need the accommodation as his daughters are married and his son is employed and has got a Government accommodation.
(2.) THE tenant, herein petitioner, contested the release application and alleged that the landlord has not disclosed the correct and complete accommodation at his disposal. According to him, the landlord has not disclosed one room accommodation on the fourth floor and a Dochhati in the intermediary floor between the first floor and the second floor. There is also one room on the first floor which was let out to one Sri B.D. Sharma about 5 years back. It has also been alleged that one room on the second floor is in the tenancy of one Hira Lal who is the son -in -law of the petitioner and he resides separately on a monthly rent of Rs. 15. The landlord thereafter filed an affidavit that he has a room on the fourth floor measuring 10 -1/2' x 12' and on the third floor he has two rooms measuring 12' x 15' and 8' x 15'. It has also been admitted that there is one room on the first floor measuring 19' x 5'.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority, after the parties exchanged affidavits and filed their evidence, held that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and genuine as he did not come to the Court with clean hands and did not disclose the correct and complete accommodation at his disposal. The Prescribed Authority was further of the view that the accommodation to a tenant B.D. Sharma was let out by the landlord during the pendency of the case and the accommodation of the fourth floor was also let out to the tenants in the last two years. In case the petitioner genuinely needed the accommodation, there was no reason why the tenants were let out the accommodation. The release application was rejected by order dated 20 -1 -1990.;