- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter- alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 24-9-1988 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar (respondent No. 9 ).
(2.) THE dispute relates to an accommodation in premises No. 50/89, Naughara, Kanpur, the details whereof are given in the release application referred to hereinafter. THE said accommodation has hereinafter been referred to as "the disputed accommodation". It appears that a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "the Act") purporting to be made on behalf of Smt. Sarju Devi (proforma respondent No. 7 herein) and Jalpa Prasad (petitioner herein) as applicant Nos. 1 and 2, was filed against Dr. Shambhu Dayal (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein ). It was, inter-alia, alleged in the said release application that the said Smt. Sarju Devi (proforma respondent No. 7 herein) and the said Jalpa Prasad (petitioner herein) (applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in the release application) were the owners and landlords of the premises No. 50/89, Naughara, Kanpur; and that the said Dr. Shambhu Dayal (predecessor-in- interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein) had been a tenant of the disputed accommodation at a rental of Rs. 11. 55 per month; and that the rents were realized from the said Dr. Shambhu Dayal (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein) in the name of M/s. Gurudin Lal Mahabir Prasad and that the said Dr. Shambhu Dayal (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein) had been repeatedly requested to handover vacant possession of the disputed accommodation as it was required by the applicants/landlords, but the said Dr. Shambhu Dayal (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein) did not pay much heed. It was, inter-alia, further alleged in the said release application that the said Dr. Shambhu Dayal (predecessor-in- interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein) had been carrying on Homeopathy dispensary in the disputed accommodation, but due to his old age, he had become a rare visitor to the accommodation; and that the said Dr. Shambhu Dayal (predecessor- in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein) was aged about 65 years. It was, inter-alia, further alleged in the said release application that the said Dr. Shambhu Dayal (predecessor- in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein), some ten months' back, met with an accident and fractured his leg, and ever since then, the said Dr. Shambhu Dayal (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein) was almost attached to the bed and his movements had been curtailed; and that in fact, due to his old age and the accident, the said Dr. Shambhu Dayal (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein) was unable to even go out of the house; and that the disputed accommodation was no longer required by the said Dr. Shambhu Dayal (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein), and the same was neither used by him nor was of any utility to him any more; and that the said Dr. Shambhu Dayal (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein) was retaining the disputed accommodation only to make illegal gain.
(3.) IT was, inter-alia, further alleged in the said release application that the family of the landlords/applicants was a large one comprising of the applicant No. 1 (Smt. Sarju Devi - proforma respondent No. 7 herein), applicant No. 2 (Jalpa Prasad petitioner herein), his wife, three daughters and son; and that the name of the said son was Vinod Kumar, and he was aged about 20 years. IT was, inter- alia, further alleged in the said release application that the applicant No. 2 (Jalpa Prasad - petitioner herein) was also sitting idle since many years and he wanted to start a cloth business and establish his son therein too. IT was, inter-alia, further alleged in the said release application that the disputed accommodation was ideally situated for cloth business, as it was situated in the cloth market, and the said Jalpa Prasad (petitioner herein) would be able to settle his son in life and earn his living. IT was, inter-alia, further alleged in the said release application that it was not proper to allow an adult son to sit idle and it was high time for the applicant No. 2 (Jalpa Prasad - petitioner herein) to fulfil his duties as father to settle the son in life; and that in fact, the said Vinod Kumar had inclination towards cloth business and the applicant No. 2 (Jalpa Prasad petitioner herein) had knowledge of the said business and proper contacts; and that the applicant No. 2 (Jalpa Prasad - petitioner herein) had once done cloth business himself. It was, inter-alia, further alleged in the said release application that both the applicants in the release application and the said Vinod Kumar had the sources to commence cloth business from the disputed accommodation, besides the applicant No. 2 (Jalpa Prasad - petitioner herein) had been promised good credit by several cloth merchants.;