RAKESH SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been heard and disposed of in the open Court today. My reasons for dismissing the writ petition are as follows: Heard Mohammad Saeed, learned Counsel for the petitioners, tenants and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, landlord.
(2.) THE petitioners have assailed the orders dated 23.6.2003 and 7.7.2003 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate in Case No. 7 of 2000 under Section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the order dated 16.4.2004, passed by the Additional District Judge, Unnao in Rent Revision No. 55 of 2004. It emerges from record that on 18.10.2000, the landlord, Aditya Prakash Sharma, respondent No. 3, had filed a release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act against the petitioners before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Unnao, seeking release of the premises, House No. 779, Mohalla Kalyani Devi (Civil Lines), City and District Unnao. The landlord had indicated in the release application that petitioners were unauthorised occupants in the premises in dispute. One Sri Manoj Singh was initially inducted as tenant in the above mentioned house on payment of Rs. 60 per month as rent. Sri Manoj Singh had vacated the premises and had shifted to his native village, Kulha, Attora, Pargana Aaslwan, Rasoolabad, Unnao. Thus, the vacancy had created under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act. The landlord further submitted that the premises in dispute was 50 -60 years' old and was in a dilapidated condition. He wanted it to be demolished and build a new house for residential purposes for his family members. The landlord's nephew, Gaurav Kumar Sharma, who was pursuing M.B.B.S. course in Lucknow Medical College, was also living with him for the last several years. The landlord wanted to settle him in private practice in the said house. All these bona fide needs were demonstrated in the release application by the landlord. The Rent Control Inspector had also indicated in his report dated 23.12.2000 that the house was 50 -60 years' old. There were cracks in the wall and roof. The house was in a dilapidated condition. The landlord's family was residing in other portion of the same house. It has also come in the report of Rent Control Inspector that Km. Reeta Singh, Km. Meenu Singh and Amit Kumar Singh, were living in the house in dispute. Objections were filed by the tenants. Considering the material on record, the Rent Control Officer, had declared the vacancy and ordered for release of the premises in question in favour of the landlord. The prescribed authority had also appreciated the bona fide need of the landlord. Some other persons also had applied for allotment and their applications were rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision before the revisional court, i.e., Additional District Judge, Unnao, who has rejected the revision on the ground that it was not maintainable. Detailed order was passed by the Additional District Judge, Unnao on 16.4.2004.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners No. 2 to 5, belong to the family of original tenant, Sri Manoj Singh, petitioner No. 1 and they were living together. Even after vacating the premises by Sri Manoj Singh, the petitioners being members of the family have right to live as tenants. The petitioner No. 2, Sri Sunil Kumar has alleged that he is real brother of Sri Manoj Singh as such he has right to live in the house as tenant.;