S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord-respondents 3 to 5 against tenant Badruddin (since deceased and survived by petitioner) who is his mother. Release application, which was registered as rent case No. 96 of 2000, was allowed on 27.3.2002 by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar. Against the said order petitioner filed appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as rent appeal No. 23 of 2002. The appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1 Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 18.8.2003. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgments and orders. The Courts below have held that need of the landlords was bonafide and they would suffer greater hardship in-case release application was rejected than the hardship which will be faced by the tenant in-case release application was allowed.
(2.) The main point argued by learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner is that landlords have got ample alternative accommodation at their disposal at house No. 180-D Chandani, kanpur hence their need was not bonafide. The allegation of the tenant was that house No. 180-D actually consisted of three house. Both the Courts below held that in view of assessment records of Nagar Mahapalika house No. 180-D was in three parts and each part was owned by separate persons. Only one part thereof was owned by the father of the landlord. It was also recorded that in the municipal record it was shown that the said house was used for commercial purpose. The Courts below also considered other accommodation pointed out by the tenant to be available to the landlords. The Courts below recorded a finding that petitioners are in possession of only one room and one kothari for their entire family, which was quite in sufficient for the entire family of the landlord, which was quite big. It was also alleged by the landlords that two of the landlords were not married due to paucity of accommodation.
(3.) The Courts below also held that tenant did not make any effort to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application, which was sufficient to decide the question of comparative hardship against the landlords.;