S.U.Khan - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent against the tenant on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of Rent Case No. 100 of 1992. Prescribed Authority/VIth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar dismissed the release application through judgment and order dated 18.3.1999. Against the said judgment and order Surya Kumar Pandey landlord respondent filed Rent Appeal No. 71 of 1999, A.D.J. Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar, through judgment and order dated 22.7.2004 allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the prescribed authority and allowed the release application of landlord-respondent, hence this writ petition by tenant petitioner. Property in dispute consists of two rooms, common latrine, bath room and balcony on the first floor of house No. 128/2-C, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur. Landlord stated that adjoining portion of the same house was in his possession which consisted of only two rooms on the first floor. Landlord further pleaded that his family consisted of himself, his wife and son Ashish Kumar. It was further stated that Smt. Mohani Devi, daughter of real brother of the landlord was also residing with the landlord alongwith her husband Vinod and two sons Parol and Rahul. It was further stated that occasionally Smt. Savitri Misra, married daughter of the landlord visited him alongwith his family and there was no accommodation available to the landlord to adjust her. It was further stated by the landlord that the tenant had constructed his own house at 245, Shankaracharya Nagar, Yashoda Nagar, Kanpur and tenant was running a coaching centre under the name and style of Adarsh Coaching Centre from accommodation in dispute which was taken by him on rent for residential purposes. It was also stated that tenant was posted as Parivartan Adhikari under Labour Commissioner and was getting handsome salary.
(3.) PRESCRIBED authority on the basis of document pertaining to house tax assessment held that landlord in his possession had two rooms and kitchen on the ground floor, three rooms and two store rooms on the first floor and two constructed and two semi-constructed rooms on second floor. The prescribed authority concluded that as the landlord was having seven constructed and two semi-constructed rooms in his possession, hence his need was not bona fide. Commission was also issued by the prescribed authority to inspect the accommodation in possession of landlord and submit his report. According to the Commissioner's report on the ground floor there were four rooms out of which in two rooms daughter of son-in-law of the landlord alongwith their children were residing and apart from it one store room, one kitchen room and a hall was stated to be in possession of the landlord. There were two more rooms on the ground floor which was stated to be in occupation of other tenant. On the first floor two rooms, kitchen, varandha balcony and pooja ghar was also found in possession of the landlord and two rooms in possession of the tenant. On the second floor Commissioner found only two semi-constructed rooms and not fully constructed room. Commissioner further reported that daughter of the tenant refused to permit him to inspect house No. 244, Shankaracharya Nagar. Ultimately prescribed authority concluded that on the ground floor landlord had two rooms, one store and on the first floor three rooms and one store. If store is treated as room then total rooms in possession of the landlord were found to be seven by the prescribed authority. Thereafter prescribed authority held that landlord actually required only 5 rooms. One for the landlord and his wife, one for his son, one for his daughter and son-in-law and one for two grandchildren of the landlord and one as drawing cum guest room.;