Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) By means of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant challenges the order dated 28th January, 2004, passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 14th July, 2004, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-'3' and '4', respectively, to the writ petition.
(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the landlord of the accommodation in question, who were residing under the guardianship of their maternal grand-father at the time when the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (In short 'the Act') was filed on behalf of the maternal grand-father on the ground that they are living under the guardianship of their maternal grand-father, as their parents died at early age. It is also asserted that respondent No. 1, namely, Mohd. Abbas has attain majority, and doing his own business and is of marriageable age, but his marriage is being postponed because they do not have any residential accommodation. In the residence of their maternal grand-father, who lives in small accommodation, there are huge family members, including three grand-daughters. It is also asserted that respondent No. 2, namely, Km. Huma is going to attain majority within fifteen days of the filing of the application and respondent No. 3, namely, Km. Saba is also is going to be major, they are studying in the college in higher classes and since there is paucity of space in the residence of their maternal grandfather, they are feeling difficulty in perusing their higher studies, therefore, the need for the release of the accommodation in question, which is under the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant, is bona fide. On the question of comparative hardship, it is asserted by the landlord that the need is more pressing as compared to that of the tenant, therefore, the application under Section 1 (1) (a) of the Act was filed for the release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord.
(3.) The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid application and asserted that all the allegations made in the application are incorrect. The applicants-landlord are comfortably living with their maternal grand-father and they do not require any additional accommodation. On the contrary, if the tenant with a large family, in case the release application is allowed, he will be thrown out on the street and on the question of alternative accommodation, the tenant asserted he is trying to find out the accommodation covered by the provisions of the Act is to be allotted to him and as soon as any other accommodation is allotted he will be vacating the accommodation in question. There is dispute between the parties on the question of rent payable by the tenant. The landlord asserted that the rent of the accommodation in question is Rs. 100/- per month, whereas the petitioner-tenant submitted that the rent is Rs. 5.20 per month.;