S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard and judgment was reserved on 19 -8 -2003. On that date learned Counsel for the respondent was not present as is evident from the order -sheet of that date.
(2.) THE main point involved in this case is whether petitioner can be treated to be landlord of the building in dispute and entitled to file release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 even though he is not the owner. Prescribed Authority decided the question in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner had filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against respondent No. 2 which was registered as RC Case No. 58 of 1978. Prescribed Authority/II - Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur allowed the release application on 25 - 8 -1981 holding that petitioner was landlord and his need was bona fide and balance of comparative hardship also lay in his favour. Respondent No. 2/tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act being Rent Appeal No. 305 of 1981. District Judge, Kanpur by judgment and order dated 15 -7 -1982 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment of the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the release application. The Appellate Court held that petitioner was not the landlord, hence, release application filed by him was not maintainable. In view of this finding, the lower appellate Court did not record any findings regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship.
(3.) THE shop in dispute is owned by Mangali Prasad and Chunni Lal. Petitioner managed the property on their behalf and collected the rent from the tenant/respondent No. 2. Under Section 3 (j) of the Act landlord means a person to whom the rent of the tenanted building is payable and includes agent or attorney of such person. The Prescribed Authority held as follows: Even Mangali Prasad has filed (sic) the appellant is managing the affairs of premises in question. However, the allegation in para 11 of the WS is also very much relevant on this point. The opposite party has admitted that the rent has been paid to the applicant. Even Sadhna Mishra, President of the opposite party society in her affidavit dated 9 -2 -1981 has admitted that the applicant represented as the landlord and rent was paid to him. From the side of the opposite party Badri Vishal, Manager of the society has admitted the applicant as landlord in para 9 of his affidavit dated 24 -4 -1981. The lower appellate Court held that: The position of the respondent has been that of a mere agent or an instrumentality, in the context of Section 21 (1) (a) he is not the landlord or as such competent to apply for release based on his own requirement.;