SUDHIR NARAIN,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.11.1990, passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application filed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed the application on the allegation that she is owner and landlady of House No. 101/141/II, Ahata Gammoo Khan, Beconganj, Kanpur. There are eight members in her family consisting of herself, her husband, four sons and two daughters and the accommodation with her consists of one small room, one courtyard and latrine. It was alleged that the accommodation with her was hardly sufficient for the need of her family members. Out of four sons one son was aged about 14-15 years, second son aged about 10 years, third son aged about 8 years, fourth son aged about 5 years, one daughter was aged about 12 years and another daughter aged about four years. The application was filed in the year 1986. The petitioner contested the release application on the ground that one Smt. Kaushalya Devi was also claiming the ownership in this property. He admitted that he was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 17.50 per month. However, he was depositing the rent under Section 30(2) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It was denied that the accommodation with the landlady was insufficient for her family members.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that Smt. Nefesa, Respondent No. 3, was the landlady and the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed accommodation. Considering the family members of Respondent No. 3 and the fact that she has in her possession one room and courtyard etc., her need was found to be bona fide. It was further found that the family of the petitioner consists of only two persons and considering the comparative hardship of the parties, the application was allowed by order dated 12.11.1990.;