Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.8.2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lalitpur (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) as well as the judgment and order dated 27.3.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (D.D.A.), Lalitpur (Annexure -5 to the writ petition). The facts as culled out from the record are that the accommodation in dispute is claimed to be under the tenancy of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 12.50 paise per month. An application under sections 21(1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. was moved by the landlord for release of the accommodation in dispute for his personal need. The application was opposed by the petitioner who filed objection inter alia, that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and in fact it was a need created on the basis of fake partition claimed to have been made amongst brothers and sisters. It was also alleged in the objection that the landlord had no need for the accommodation in dispute.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority allowed the release application vide order dated 4.8.2005 holding that the bona fide need and comparative hardship of the landlord was more in comparison to the tenant, hence his application under sections 21(1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is liable to be accepted. The tenant was accordingly ordered to handover vacant possession of the house in dispute No. 78/1 situated at Najai Bazar, Lalitpur to the landlord within 30 days from the date of the order, otherwise the landlord would be entitled to take possession of the house in dispute at the cost of the tenant. Against the judgment and order dated 4.8.2005 the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority by means of Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 2005, Mahmood Husain Siddiqui v. Manjoor Ahmad Khan under section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and order dated 4.8.2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 27.3.2006. Both the orders i.e. 4.8.2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lalitpur and the Appellate Authority dated 2.3.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (DDA), Lalitpur have been impugned in the present writ petition on the grounds that the Courts below have illegally and erroneously allowed the release application holding that the sons of the petitioner possessed their own plots.
(3.) IT is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the release application of the landlord ought not to have been considered as the need of the landlord was not bona fide whereas the bona fide need and comparative hardship of the petitioner -tenant was greater.;