A.B.Srivastava - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 16-1-1992 of the Xlllth Addl. District Judge Kanpur Nagar in appeal under section 22 of Act 13 of 1972 whereby he allowed the application of the landlords, respondent nos. 1 to 5, for release of accommodation under section 21 (1) (a) of Act 13 of 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) THE application under section 21 (1) (a) for release was filed by the respondent landlords on the ground that they purchased house no. 119/73 Jawahar Nagar by sale deed date 29-3-1986 for their personal use and occupation for residence. Prior to it; they resided in house no. 87/6E Hiraganj, Kanpur, as tenant. THE petitioner is a tenant of a portion consisting of one room and Chhajja on the ground floor with combined latrine and bath. THE family of the (landlords consist of sixteen persons named in the petition, whereas they are in occupation of two rooms along with kitchen etc. on the second floor, and one room on the ground floor. THE family consists of four married couple and some others of marriageable age, besides widowed mother and school going children.0 THE accommodation aforesaid thus is to tally inadequate to their requirements. THE family of the tenant consists of six persons including four minor children. THE respondents have a bonafide requirement of the portion in tenancy of the petitioner, for their personal occupation. The release application was contested by the petitioner tenant inter alia on the ground that, no notice as required under first proviso to section 21 of the Act has been served. The landlords have got three rooms on the ground floor, one on the first floor, and another room and Verandah on the second floor. They have also converted one Verandah into room. One room occupied by another tenant Deshraj Singh has also been vacated by him. The respondents have also allowed three rooms in this house to be occupied by their near relation Jagdish Prasad as licence. Accordingly landlord's need for additional accommodation is neither bonafide nor genuine. In the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority affidavits in support of their respective contentions were filed by both the sides. A Commissioner was also appointed to make local inspection who submitted his report dated 16-7-1990.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority by its order dated 6-9-1991 rejected the the application for release on the ground that notice under the proviso Ist to section 21 is not proved to have been served la appeal however, the learned appellate authority reversing the said finding held that notice was served by refusal, the landlords and their family members bonafide require the accommodation In question for their occupation, and greater hardship will be caused to them if the release is refused to than to the petitioner tenant if the same is allowed. He accordingly allowed the prayer for release. Since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally according to the rules of court. Learned counsel for both the sides have been heard and the material on record perused.;