S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord-respondent No. 3 Prem Chandra Sahu on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 113 of 198S on the file of Prescribed Authority/Special C.J.M., Allahabad. The release application was filed against Vinod Kumar Jaiswal -respondent No. 4 in the writ petition and Amresh Kumar Jaiswal - petitioner. Property in dispute is a house containing two rooms rent of which is Rs. 50/- per month.
(2.) It was stated in the release application that after the death of landlord's father, landlord his two brothers Suresh Chandra and Prahalad Chandra and their mother Smt. Mange Devi partitioned the properties among themselves in such manner that a house Bearing No. 671 fell in the share of Prahalad Chandra, House No. 68-A fell in the share of landlord's mother in which two rooms were in her possession and two in possession of another tenant. It was further pleaded that the house of which accommodation in dispute is a part was allotted to landlord and his brother Suresh Chandra and its portion which fell in the share of Suresh Chandra retained the old No. i.e., 2 Krishna Nagar and the portion which fell in the share of landlord was numbered as 2-A Krishna Nagar and that accommodation in dispute was part of the partition 2-A which fell in the share of the landlord. Prescribed Authority on the basis of Commissioner's report held that in House No. 2-A Krishna Nagar landlord had three rooms in his possession, two on the ground floor and one on the first floor. However, it was pleaded by the landlord that one room on the ground floor was being used by him as shop hence he had only two residential rooms in his possession one on the ground floor and one on the first floor. House No. 671 was not permitted to be inspected by the Advocate Commissioner and family members of Prahalad Chandra in whose share the said house had fallen, according to the landlord, did not permit the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the same. Prescribed Authority did not believe the case of the landlord in respect of partition and held that landlord had available with him the two rooms in house No. 68-A and House No. 671 as well as House No. 2 Krishna Nagar. Prescribed Authority held that family of the landlord was not big as it consisted of himself, his wife and two children hence accommodation available to him was sufficient.
(3.) It was also pleaded by the landlord that House No. 111 had been acquired by Vinod Kumar one of the tenants. In order to prove this allegation municipal records were filed. However, Advocate Commissioner reported that he could not trace the said house and landlord could also not point out any particular house which could bear No. 111. Prescribed Authority concluded that tenant had no other house available in Allahabad hence balance of hardship lay in his favour. Ultimately Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 21.2.1995 rejected the release application. Landlord-respondent No. 3 filed R.C. Appeal No. 147 of 1995 against the said judgment and order A.D.J., Court No. 2, Allahabad through judgment and order dated 12.12.2000 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlord hence this writ petition.;