RAKESH Tiwari, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of orders dated 3-3-2005 and 2- 8-2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5 and the Prescribed Authority respectively.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the landlord-respondent filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Eviction and Rent) Act, 1972 praying for release of the tenanted accommodation of house No. 106/30, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur. THE petitioner is tenant of the aforesaid house on monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. THE tenancy of the petitioner was terminated vide notice but he did not vacate the accommodation. According to the landlord, the accommodation in his possession consisted of three rooms, two store rooms, Barandah-cum-kitchen, latrine, bath-room and a box room, which was insufficient for his large family whereas the petitioner- tenant has four rooms, latrine, bath-room, store, angan and one tin shed which has been placed without the permission of the landlord. The petitioner, in his written statement admitted that he is tenant in the premises, in dispute on a rent of Rs. 150/- per month. It was also stated by him that though he denied the title of the respondent as landlord but whenever rent was remitted to the respondent it was not accepted. The notice served by the landlord was also replied. In his written statement, the petitioner stated that the landlord has got 8 rooms on the ground floor, covered Barandah, kitchen, latrine, bath-room and two rooms on the second floor which is more than sufficient for his family. Regarding denial of title he stated that ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... Per contra, the landlord stated that his wife was suffering from serious ailment, therefore, one room was required for her. He needed baithak for his son Sri Pradeep Kumar, who was an Advocate of Income Tax and Sales Tax and there were two school going children. He stated that he needed atleast one bed room and one living room as his two other sons posted outside often pay visit to the landlord and his married daughter often come with children to live with them and he needed atleast one room as drawing room and one rest room, one room for school going children, one room for dining purpose and his son Sri Pradeep Kumar also needed the accommodation for carrying on his profession.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority granted the release application vide order dated 2-8-2004 holding that the need of the landlord was genuine and comparative hardship of the landlord was greater than the tenant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed appeal before the District Judge, which was transferred to Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order dated 3-3-2005.;