Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) INSPITE of notices having been sent to the respondent No. 2 none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 2. The notice upon the respondent No. 2 has already been deemed to be sufficient vide order dated 31.8.2001 passed on the order sheet. Heard Sri J.N. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners who are landlords of the premises in question had filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for eviction of the respondent No. 2 on the grounds of their personal need. The case of petitioner -landlords was that both the petitioners are living separately in tenanted houses and they require the accommodation in question for their residence. It is their case that the respondent No. 2 has trespassed forcibly on four rooms, two verandah and one kothari for which the petitioners have already instituted the proceeding in the Civil Court. However, the respondent No. 2 is a tenant of one room and one verandah on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 35. The petitioners case is that the respondent No. 2 has got three other houses in the city of Kanpur being house No. 62, House No. 15 and premises No. 58 situate in various localities of the city as such in view of provisions of the Explanation (i) of section 21 the objection of the tenant could not have been entertained. The prescribed authority found that the house No. 62 and house No. 15 belonging to the family of the respondent No. 2 are not available to him for the reason that either they are shops which have been already let out or other members of the family of the tenant are living therein. In so far as the premises No. 58 is concerned, it has found that the shop therein has already been let out to a tenant. Hence it has recorded that the objection of the tenants could not be thrown out in as much as the accommodations which are owned by the respondent No. 2 and his family in the city were not available for the purpose of residence. It consequently proceeded to dismiss the application for release filed by the petitioner.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate Court has concurred with the finding of the prescribed authority and has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.;