SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 18.12.2006 passed by District Judge, Hardoi whereby an appeal under section 22 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'Act') filed by the respondent No. 2 (in short 'landlord-respondent') has been allowed after setting aside the judgment and order dated 29.3.2005 passed by Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi in P.A. Case No. 6 of 2000.
(2.) THE background facts in a nutshell are as follows: (i) The respondent-landlord is the owner and landlord of the disputed house No. 172/1, Mohalla Nai-Basti, District Hardoi wherein the peti­tioner Smt. Tara Devi is occupying the disputed accommodation as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. An application under section 21 of the Act was filed on the allegation that landlord-respondent was earlier em­ployed in a private biscuit factory in Kanpur and was residing there in a tenanted accommodation comprising of one small room, latrine and bath­room. After the closure of factory he shifted to Hardoi. It was further al­leged hat he has a bona fide need of the disputed accommodation for his personal use and occupation. His family consists of self, wife and one son, who is of marriageable age, but his marriage is being postponed on account of non-availability of a suitable accommodation in Hardoi. He further stated that in his ancestral house, he has got only one room in his posses­sion which is in a very dilapidated condition and not at all suitable for res­idential purpose. The opposite party lives in Village Sikandarpur, which is about 20 Km. away from Hardoi and her two sons are already in posses­sion of the two different accommodations as tenant, one in Gupta Colony and other in Preetam Nagar. (ii) The petitioner-tenant contested the release application alleging that the respondent-landlord is living in Kanpur alongwith his family and does not want to shift to Hardoi and his alleged need is not bona fide and genuine. It is further pleaded by the tenant-petitioner that the landlord-respondent has four houses in Hardoi, out of which one is in his possession and the remaining are on rent. It is further pleaded that the disputed ac­commodation consists of one room, front verandah and half portion of the courtyard. The petitioner-tenant has no house in the Hardoi city. She be­longs to a labour class and has no means to obtain other house and as such she will suffer greater hardship, if the disputed accommodation is re­leased in favour of the landlord. The number of affidavits were exchanged between the parties and the landlord also filed a number of documents in support of his case. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application filed under section 21 by the landlord holding that the need of the landlord is neither genuine nor bona fide and further held that the landlord has several accommodations in his possession and the petitioner-tenant will suffer greater hardship in case if she is evicted.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by and dis-satisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court landlord filed an appeal under section 22 and the same was allowed by judgment and order dated 18.12.2006 holding the need of the landlord to be bona fide and genuine and also the hardship in favour of the landlord.;