K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition against the judgment of Sri Usha Kant Verma, III Additional District Judge, Kanpur dated 8 -4 -1981 in Rent Appeal No. 176 of 1978 between Smt. Rahimunnisa and Riazul Haq. It arises out of an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No 13 of 1972 filed by contesting opposite party Smt. Rahimunnisa.
(2.) THE landlady, contesting opposite party No. 2 in the present writ petition, had applied for release of the accommodation in question on the ground of bonafide need. She had mentioned in her application that there were 12 members in her family and she bonafide required the premises in question. Her claim was contested by the Petitioner on the ground that the landlady had unnecessarily inflated the number of members in her family and that two sons lived separately from her since long more than 10 years and that their need could not be taken into account in the application filed by the landlady, and various other pleas were taken. The Prescribed Authority in its order, dated 16 -9 -1978 accepted the pleas raised on beheld of the Defendant -Petitioner and rejected the application Bled by the contesting opposite party. Against the judgment of the Trial Court the landlady had preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the appellate court through its order dated 8 -4 -81. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court the tenant Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner has 'Contended before me that the landlady got an accommodation during the pendency of the application for release and that accommodation was considered sufficient for her need by the Trial Court and the lower appellate court has not addressed itself to that question and has patently erred in allowing the appeal.;