Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the judgment and orders dated 11.9.2000 and 15.5.1998 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 whereby the application of the petitioner under section 21(1)(a) of the UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been rejected and the appeal against the same has also been dismissed. The dispute relates to house No. 51/1 Ganesh Bazar Jhansi which is in occupation of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. The petitioner purchased the said house by means of registered sale deed dated 23.7.1980 after giving the necessary notice. The petitioner filed the application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act setting up a need for residential use for herself and her other family members, on the ground that the existing accommodation with her was not sufficient. It was also mentioned in the release application that the tenant respondent No. 3 had purchased/acquired another accommodation in the Municipal limits of Jhansi being house No. 509 Nanak Ganj, Sipari Bazar Jhansi where he and his other family members can easily live.
(2.) THE respondent No. 3 contested the release application and alleged that the petitioner had not given the correct details of the accommodation available with her. She had mentioned only three rooms in her occupation whereas actually she had six rooms in her possession and the accommodation available with her was sufficient for the needs of herself and family members. The release application had been filed mala fide and is liable to be dismissed. The tenant further alleged in the written statement that the house No. 509 Nanak Ganj Sipari Bazar Jhansi was purchased by his son Ajai Srivastava and that he along with his wife was living in the said accommodation after his marriage as the relationship between mother -in -law and daughter -in -law was not very cordial. A commission was also issued by the prescribed authority to examine and report to the extent of accommodation available with the landlady petitioner. The commissioner submitted his report dated 12.3.1997 in which it was reported that landlady had in her possession three rooms one kitchen, one Pooja room on the ground floor and one room on the first floor which has thatched roof and the other is in a dilapidated condition. The prescribed authority has held that explanation to section 21(1) of the Act was attracted, as the tenant had not disputed the fact of acquiring accommodation in the same municipality. However, he held that the petitioner landlady could not get benefit of release on account of the fact that she already had sufficient accommodation in her possession and there was no need for any further accommodation. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 24 of 1998 the same has also been dismissed by the appellate authority vide judgment dated 11.9.2000 affirming the finding of the prescribed authority. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) I have heard Miss Pooja Agarwal learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent.;