V.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Shashi Nandan learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Shri B.D. Mandhyan learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2.
(2.) This is a landlord's petition. The petitioner has filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the premises in dispute was required for her residential purpose. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application after recording the finding that the need to the landlady was bona fide and genuine. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal. On the tenant's application a report of Advocate Commissioner was called for. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the landlady was carrying on business on the first floor and on the ground floor she was residing. On the ground floor there was only one room, one baithak, kitchen and store in her possession. Whereas the tenant was having four rooms under his tenancy for residential purpose. The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 by misreading the Advocate Commissioner's report that the Advocate Commissioner had recorded in his report that the landlady was doing her business in the ground floor and she was residing on the first floor. On that basis he has held that the landlady is having sufficient accommodation in her possession and her need was neither genuine nor bona fide and tenant would suffer greater hardship than that of landlady.
(3.) I have gone through the order of the Appellate Court and from the report of Advocate Commissioner it is clear that in the ground floor the landlady is having only one room, one baithak, kitchen and store room and the Appellate Court on conjectures and surmises by misreading the report of the Advocate Commissioner has taken a contrary view. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 1 cannot be maintained.;