S.K.GUPTA, J. - (1.) SRI Hari Om Verma has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by prescribed authority/First Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow directing the release of the pre­mises in question in favour of the landlady exercising its jurisdiction under Sec­tion 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and order of its affirmation dated 19.10.2005 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No. 12th, Lucknow in Rent Control Appeal No.24 of 2002. The background facts in a nutshell essentially are as follows:
(2.) THE respondent-landlady filed an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (in short 'Act') for ejectment and release of the shop in dispute on the ground of bonafide and genuine need alleging therein that she is owner-landlady of House No.401/100, Abdul Aziz Road, Lucknow, situate on a land measuring 600 sq.ft. and on the ground floor of the building there are 5 shops and on the first floor of the said building there are two rooms, one kitchen, one kothari, toilet, small open terrace and on the second floor there is a room measuring 8"x8" and open roof. The applicant along with his family consists of 20 members. Out of the 5 shops mentioned, one is in the occupation of the application in which Rizwan Ali is running a PCO and other four are in the tenancy of other tenants. Out of the said 4 shops one is in the tenancy of the petitioner tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.12.50 wherein the petitioner-tenant is running a business of text books and stationary in the name of Shamsi Book Depot. It is further stated in the application under Section 21 of the Act, that out of 5 sons of the applicant landlord, 4 are unemployed and the applicant requires the shop in tenancy of the opposite parties for the residential purposes of her family.
(3.) IT is further stated that out of the 4 sons of the tenant only Hari Ram Verma is sitting in the shop in dispute and other sons of the tenant are already em­ployed and earning livelihood and more over all the daughters of the tenant are also in service. The accommodation in possession of the landlady-applicant is not sufficient considering the size of her family. The landlady-applicant has no other alternative suitable accommodation for her family.;