MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. - (1.) THE tenant -petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 23.04.2010 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Second Additional Judge Small Cause Court No.19, Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No.34/1997 whereby the release application filed by the landlords opposite parties no. 3 and 4 was allowed and the judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No.36 of 2010 whereby the appeal was dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the opposite parties no.3 and 4, who are the landlords of the premises in dispute filed an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the ground that they were the landlords of House No.138/12 situate at Fatehganj Galla Mandi, Police Station Naka, District Lucknow, which they had purchased on 12.01.1987 from Shri Vidhya Sagar Jaiswal for their own use and occupation. The tenant -petitioner was a tenant in respect of the said house on a monthly rent of Rs.225/ - per month. The landlords opposite parties no.3 and 4 had been living in House No.138/13 along with their son Ram Kishan, daughter -in -law Smt. Sunita and grand son, namely Rashu Gupta. It was further stated by them that their two married daughters namely Smt. Madhubala and Smt. Kanchan also visit their house of and on. The House No.138/13 has a shop and a godown on the first floor and on the first floor of the house there are two rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and open space. There is one room and bathroom on the second floor of the house. It was further stated by them that the landlords opposite parties no.3 and 4 do not have sufficient accommodation in their occupation as a result of which Smt. Shiv Rani Devi opposite party no.4 and her daughter -in -law Smt. Sunita had strained relations between them. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 have, therefore, decided to leave House No.138/13 for their son and his family and they would reside in house in dispute after its vacation by the tenant. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 landlords issued a notice dated 06.05.1996 through their Advocate but even after receiving the notice and expiry of three years, the petitioner -tenant did not vacate the house. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 landlords stated that in House No.138/12, there is one room, three kothris, veranda and latrine on the ground floor while on the first floor, there were two rooms, tin -shed and open space. The ground floor of House No.138/13 was being used for shop and godown and the accommodation on the first and second floor is insufficient for them. The landlords also put forward a case that the petitioner -tenant has started living in Mohalla Indira Nagar near Munshipulia along with his son and family, therefore, even if the premises in dispute is released and the tenant -petitioner is asked to vacate the house in dispute, he will not suffer much hardship. The opposite parties landlords also gave an undertaking that after release they would use the premises in dispute for their own occupation.
(3.) THE tenant -petitioner contested the release application and filed his written statement. While admitting the accommodation in his occupation, he stated that during the pendency of release application, the landlords opposite parties no.3 and 4 have constructed two rooms on the second floor and as such the house in occupation of the landlords had become a four storied building. The petitioner -tenant further pleaded that his son resides with him along with his family. There is no dispute between the opposite party no.4 and her daughter -in -law. The case of the alleged dispute has been invented only for the purpose of showing need for additional accommodation. In respect of married daughters of the opposite parties landlords, it was stated that they were already living with their respective husbands elsewhere and seldom visit the opposite parties landlords and that too for a very short time. It was also specifically denied by the tenant -petitioner that his son has any house in Indira Nagar. The parties led their evidence in the form of affidavits and also produced documentary evidence but the learned Prescribed Authority on the basis of the evidence on record allowed the application for release on the ground that the son of the petitioner -tenant is living in Indira Nagar and as such he will not suffer much hardship in case the premises in question is released. The appellant Court also affirmed the finding arrived at the learned Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal.;