S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the proceedings under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE petitioner is the tenant of a portion of the first floor of premises no. 8/18, Arya Nagar, Kanpur. Mrs. Radha Devi, respondnet No. 2, is the landlady of the said . premises. THE landlady filed an application for release under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. THE application was contested by the petitioner and, ultimately, by a detailed order dated 15th September, 1982, the application for release was dismissed by the Ist Civil Judge, Kanpur against the order dated 15th September, 1982, the landlady filed an appeal. THE appeal was allowed on 28th February, 1984, by the 16th Additional District Judge, Kanpur, and, consequently, the application for release was also allowed by the Court. Aggrieved by the order dated 28th February, 1984, the present petition has been filed in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the lower appellate court has completely ignored to consider the most material facts relevant for the purpose of the decision as to whether the need of the landlady was bonafide or not and, as such, the finding recorded by the lower appellate court, that the need of the landlady is genuine and bona fide, is vitiated in law. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE release application was filed by the landlady on the ground that considering the number of the members of her family and the accommodation available to her, she needed additional accommodation and, as such, the portion occupied by the petitioner be released in her favour so that her need be satisfied. THEse allegations were denied by the petitioner tenant. In para 12 of the release application, it has been stated by the landlady that on 28th April, 1981, the ground floor of premises no. 8/18, Arya Nagar, Kanpur, fell vacant and since it was not possible for her to shift from the first floor residence to the ground floor, as such, it was let out to Sri Mam on 9th June, 1981. Immediately thereafter on 13th June, 1981, the application for release was filed. During the pendency of the release application, the release application was amended and in paragraph 13 of the release application as it stands today, it has been further stated that another portion of the ground floor in the house in dispute facing on the back side, was vacated by another tenant Mr. Agrawal on 27th December, 1981. In this accommodation too, the landlady did not shift, as, according to her, the accommodation did not fulfil her needs. This accommodation consisted of two rooms, kitchen, verandah, court-yard, latrine and bath In Annexure 'RA-3' filed to the rejoinder affidavit, in para 2, which is the counter affidavit of Jai Shanker Tandon, who is the husband of the landlady, it has been further stated that in house no. 8/17, which is the house adjacent to the house occupied by the landlady, the ground floor accommodation fell vacant. This, according to the landlady, was also not required by her and, as such, it was let out to Dr. Usha Rani Tandon after allotment. One accommodation, mentioned above, was vacated only four days prior to the filing of the release application. Two accommodations were vacated after the filing of the release application during its pendency. These are facts which have been stated by the landlady herself.;