S.U Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated against him by landlady-respondent No. 3 Shrimati Khatoon Begum on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of Rent Case No. 87 of 1989 on the file of Prescribed Authority/A.C.M.M. VII, Kanpur Nagar. Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 17.10.1995 rejected the release application against which landlady respondent No. 3 filed R.C. Appeal No. 228 of 1995. VI A.D.J. Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 29Rs.10.1999 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlord, hence this writ petition by the tenant.
(2.) Property in dispute is a residential accommodation consisting of two rooms and other amenities. Father of landlady Sri Abdullah had let out the premises to the petitioner and his brother Asgar Ali, who had died leaving behind no Legal Representative. This fact is admitted in para 3 of the writ petition also. Before the Courts below as well as this Court,. tenant had very vehemently argued that Abdullah left behind two sons and two daughters including respondent No. 3, hence release application on behalf of respondent no. 3 alone was not maintainable. Respondent no. 3 had pleaded that in family partition house in dispute had come in her share. Even if family partition is ignored, it will not make any difference.'It has been held in the Full Bench Authority of Gopal Das v. A.D.J., 1987 (1) A.R.C. 281 that even one of the co-landlords can file release application under Section 21 of the Act even without implieading other co-landlords as proforma respondents.
(3.) As far as the bona fide need is concerned, landlady pleaded that her family consisted of 8 members i.e. herself, her husband, four sons out of whom one was married having a child. It was further pleaded that landlady had no house to live, hence in front of the house in dispute on the Government land she had placed a hut and her family was residing therein. This fact of having a hut in front of the house in dispute was admitted by the tenant with the rider that in the said hut husband of the landlady was carrying on the profession of sorcery. (Probably tenant was predicting Harry Potter era). It was further pleaded that on the top floor of the building, premises in dispute is part of which, landlady was having a room in which she was residing.;