Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned Counsel holding brief of Shri Vipin Sinha and Shri Navin Sinha, learned Counsel for petition/legal representatives of petitioner. In spite of sufficient service neither the landlord/respondent No. 3 nor after his death his legal representatives appeared.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of release/eviction proceedings initiated by landlord Girdhar Lalji Goswami, respondent No. 3 since deceased and survived by legal representatives against Har Govind Gupta, tenant -petitioner since deceased and survived by legal representatives under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of bona fide need in the form of P.A. case No. 108/78. Accommodation in dispute is a house and is situate in Koocha Sitaram, Bareilly. Rate of rent is Rs. 22.50 per month. The case set up by the landlord was that he alongwith his three sons and their families was residing at Pilibhit where he was performing the duties of Poojari and that the five room accommodation given to him by his employers was insufficient hence he required the house in dispute which is situated at Bareilly. Tenant -petitioner filed written statement and affidavit contending therein that all the three sons were employed in other cities and residing alongwith their families in the said cities. Prescribed authority/Munsif, Bareilly found that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and comparative hardship also lay in favour of the tenant. Ultimately, by order dated 21.8.1979 release application was rejected by Prescribed Authority. Against the said order landlord filed Rent Control Appeal No. 201 of 1979. In the said appeal some documentary evidence in the form of affidavits was sought to be adduced as additional evidence. Affidavits were of Neelmani Goswami one of the sons of landlord and one Yamuna Dutt Kandpal numbered as 12 -A and 13 Ga. Appellate Court/V A.D.J., Bareilly vide order dated 4.8.1981 (Annexure -VIII) rejected the application for adducing additional evidence. However, the Appellate Court on the basis of these very affidavits in para -4 of the typed copy of its judgment Annexure -9 held that Neelmani Goswami eldest son of the landlord had left his service at Kashipur and was residing with his family alongwith his father. When the affidavits were refused to be taken on record as additional evidence then there was no occasion for the Appellate Court to place reliance upon the said affidavits. Appellate Court ultimately on 31.10.1981 allowed the appeal as well as release application. This writ petition is directed against the said judgment of the Appellate Court.
(3.) THE main basis of Appellate Court's judgment is the evidence in the form of affidavits of Neelmani Goswami and Yamuna Dart Kandpal. Their affidavits had already been refused to be taken on record.;