S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenants' writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by the landlord respondent No.3 Heera Singh on the ground of bonafide need under section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 in the form of Case No. 391 of 1977 on the file of prescribed authority/Munsif, Sisamau, Kanpur against Sunder Lal and laxmi Narain, the original petitioners.
(2.) Accommodation in dispute is a residential house bearing number 119/501-C Darshan Purva Kanur, consisting of two rooms on the ground floor. Landlord is residing on first and second floor. On the first floor he has two rooms and on the second floor one room is in his possession.
(3.) In the release application it was stated that tenant Sunder Lal original petitioner No.1 owned two houses and he was residing in one of the two houses. It was pleaded on behalf of the tenants before the prescribed authority that some of the family members of Sunder Lal were sleeping at night in the house in dispute due to paucity of accommodation with Sunder Lal. However the said version was not accepted by the courts below. During pendency of writ petition, Sunder Lal died. Substitution application was filed in which it was stated that heirs of Sunder Lal had refused to contest the case hence they were not being substituted and tenant petitioner No.2 Lakshmi Narain should be treated to be the only surviving legal representative of petitioner No.1. Thereafter petitioner No.2 also died and was substituted by his widow Ramsri and his son Govind Prasad. Original landlord respondent No.3 Heera Singh has also died and has been substituted by his widow and two sons. Prescribed authority found the need of the landlord to be bonafide. In respect of comparative hardship, it was held that petitioner No.1 was having two houses in his ownership and in one of the said houses he was residing. It was also found that the other tenant Lakshmi Narain (original petitioner No.2) also owned three houses including 119/501-A and in the said house he was having in his possession two rooms, one on the ground floor and one on the first floor. It was also found that during pendency of the release proceedings, he had let-out houses owned by him to different persons on higher rent (rent of the accommodation in dispute is Rs. 15/- per month). Prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 16.9.1980, allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order tenant filed Rent Appeal No. 323 of 1980. XII Additional District Judge, Kanpur through judgment and order dated 7.3.1983, dismissed the appeal hence this writ.;