Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) -Heard Sri A.C. Nigam, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Manish Tandon, Advocate, for respondents.
(2.) The Release Application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") was filed by one Smt. Ram Katori Devi, wife of respondent no. 1 seeking release of accommodation in question which is a shop, in the tenancy of petitioner. Initially when application was filed in 1993, registered as Rent Case No. 127 of 1993, the applicant-landlord sought release thereof on the ground that her husband and one son, namely, Ramesh Chandra Gupta are unemployed, hence, she needed accommodation in question to establish her husband in business. During pendency of aforesaid application before Prescribed Authority, which remained pending for more than 16 years, the developments, caused with passage of time, took place inasmuch the applicant-landlord Ram Katori died, Sri Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Sri Dinesh Chandra Gupta, two sons of respondent no. 1, and Amit Gupta, one grand son also died. Besides, some grand sons became major, and, it resulted in substantial change in the circumstances of family members and their requirement. Accordingly, an application and affidavit was filed before Prescribed Authority by respondent no. 1 through his son Umesh Chandra Gupta to bring on record additional evidence and the changed requirement of the landlord's family. The said affidavit is on record as Annexure 5-A to the writ petition. Petitioner-tenant also filed his additional affidavit wherein he did not dispute relationship with grand sons, for whose benefit now respondent no. 1 claim that he wants the shop in question to be released, but simply said that the need is not genuine. The Trial Court i.e. Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court no. 2/ Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar vide judgment and order dated 17.4.2009 allowed Release Application observing that the need of landlord is bona fide and genuine, and, comparative hardship also lies in his favour. The aforesaid judgment has been confirmed in appeal preferred by petitioner dismissing Rent Appeal No. 50 of 2009 Vide judgement dated 31.8.2010. Both these orders are under challenge before this Court at the instance of petitioner-tenant.
(3.) Sri Nigam, learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that due to change of circumstances, the ground of release was changed before Prescribed Authority, but no evidence was placed before Court below to demonstrate that four grand sons, for whose benefit, respondent no. 1 intended the shop in question to be released were unemployed. The affidavit dated 26.2.2009 was filed by Sri Umesh Chandra Gupta, son of respondent no. 1, wherein he clearly stated that his father, i.e., respondent no. 1 is now very old and is not capable to look after his business himself and he intends that his four grand sons, namely, Shakti Ranjan Gupta, Arvind Gupta, Akash Gupta and Vikash Gupta, should run business since all of them are unemployed and major, between the age of 18 to 35 years. There is nothing on record to show that these facts were contradicted by petitioner and shown to be incorrect or false by adducing any evidence. The relationship was not at all dispute. It is in these facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by Courts below on the question of facts warrants no interference unless shown perverse or contrary to material on record since scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ-A No. 11365 of 1998, Jalil Ahmad v. 16th Addl. Distt. Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, decided on 30.7.2012 . There is nothing which may justify judicial review of orders impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment.;