Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Usha Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. By means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 21.11.1997 passed in Rent Appeal No. 22 of 1994 by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) THE facts of the case as brought on record are that the respondent landlord had filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of two rooms, which were in possession of the petitioner tenant, on the ground of his personal need. The prescribed authority rejected the application of the respondent landlord whereafter the appeal filed by the landlord has been allowed by the Appellate Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that during the pendency of appeal of the Appellate Court issued a commission and obtained a report on the extent of the accommodation in premises in question. The report of the Commissioner indicated one room in the occupation of the landlord was in a dilapidated condition and it is not in a condition where any one can live. It was found that the landlord was in possession of four rooms on the ground floor. One room has been converted into a shop. Another room is a store for articles of the shop, one room is being used as a place of worship and one room is being used as kitchen cum store. He is also in possession of a courtyard and a covered space which is a passage leading to the rooms which are interconnected. On the first floor the landlord is in possession of one room, one store, one bath room and one tin shed. The room and store are being used for sewing business. Three rooms and one kitchen are in possession of another tenant. Two other rooms were earlier occupied by tenants but they were in a dilapidated condition hence after the tenants vacated them they have fallen down. The Appellate Court found the need of the landlord to be bona fide since he has eight members in his family and they have no room to live in therefore his requirement of two more rooms was genuine. It also found that the landlord had been in Government service and had retired in 1991 as such he was entitled for release of the two rooms in his own house which is in possession of the petitioner tenant. It is also submitted that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are based on a misreading of the Commissioner's report. Two rooms which were vacated by other tenants were demolished by the landlord only for the purpose of this case and to make out grounds for evicting the petitioner. He has submitted that he had made efforts for an alternative accommodation and was allotted a house No. 719 -C Barra, Kanpur in 1985 but due to his weak financial condition he had to forego the same and it was allotted by Kanpur Development Authority to some other person. As such the petitioner has no other accommodation where he can shift his residence. Hence, the comparative hardship was more to the petitioner than the landlord in case the rooms were released. He further submits that the prescribed authority had rejected the application of the landlord and the Appellate Court has illegally allowed the application without considering the comparative hardship between the parties. He has also argued that two rooms on the ground floor in occupation of two tenants namely Chotte Lal and Rama Kant have been vacated on 21.1.1994 whereas the release application was filed in 1990 as such the need of the landlord stood satisfied during pendency of these proceedings.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has contended that the landlord has got eight members in his family and requires the two rooms for their residence. Two rooms have fallen down and due to paucity of the funds the landlord cannot make new constructions. His need has been found bona fide hence he is entitled for release of the said room.;