S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of release/eviction proceedings initiated by landlady-respondent under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of release application numbered as rent case No. 82 of 1988. Prescribed authority/IXth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur through judgment and order dated 15.11.1991 dismissed the release application. Landlady-respondent filed an appeal against the same under Section 22 of the Act being rent appeal No. 5 of 1992. The appeal has been allowed by XIth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 28.9.1994.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the appellate Court. One of the allegations of the tenant-petitioner is that just before filing of the release application the landlady-respondent had got vacated several portions from previous tenants and let out to other tenants on higher rents. The Prescribed Authority placing the burden to dis-prove the said fact upon the landlady has held that she failed to dis-prove the said fact. Prescribed authority also held that landlady did not file extract from the records of Cantt. Board to show that new tenants had not been inducted. In Para-3 of the appellate Court judgment it has mentioned that according to the tenant Surendra Kumar Misra, Kisha, Mewalal Gautam, Balram and Shri Prem were the new tenants inducted by the landlady-respondent. Trial Court in its judgment mentioned the allegations of the tenant giving particular names of the old tenant and the new tenants and the enhancement in the rent. The lower Appellate Court rightly held that absolutely no evidence was adduced by the tenants to show that several other tenants had vacated the portions in their tenancy occupation and landlady had let out those portions to other tenants. The best evidence in this regard could have been the affidavits of outgoing tenants which were not filed. In case new tenants had recently been inducted then records of Cantt. Board would have shown the change of possession. Tenant did not file any such record of Cantt. Board which would substantiate the said allegation.
(3.) The lower Appellate Court therefore, in my opinion rightly held that the landlady had not let out any portion in the recent past. The lower appellate Court thereafter held the need of the landlady to be bonafide. I do not find any error in the said finding of the lower appellate Court.;