Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Pramod Jain, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satya Priya Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the tenant of the property in question for which release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972 was filed by the respondent on the ground that they had purchased the property in question and is required for their personal need which was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. Learned counsel further contends that the trial allowed the release application on vide order dated 03.04.2014 against an appeal under Section 22 of the Act No.XIII of 1972 was filed by the petitioner which appeal was also dismissed vide Judgement and order dated 19.01.2015 which orders are impugned in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the details of the accommodation of the landlord was not given in the release application besides the fact that the three tenants had also vacated the premises in their possession therefore, their need is not genuine.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents is living with his father which is tenanted accommodation of the company and after his retirement, the company officials are pressuring the respondents to vacate the premises in question and since no accommodation is available with the respondents in the district of Kanpur as such the respondents require the said accommodation for their personal need.;