Vivek Kumar Birla, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Chandra Agrahari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlady. Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.5.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 64 of 2017 (Sanjai Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Rajeswari Devi) as well as order dated 1.11.2017 passed by the prescribed authority in Rent Case No. 4 of 2011 (Smt. Rajeswari Devi v. Sanjai Kumar Gupta. Further prayer has been made seeing direction to the respondent to intimate vacancy to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur about shop no. 3 vacated by Anil Kumar and Dinesh Verma and about the shop of late Saleem vacated by Jane Alam s/o Saleem in pursuance of the decree dated 12.5.2017 passed in SCC Suit No. 234 of 2012 and nominate the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act as his candidate for allotment of one of the said shop.
(2.) By the impugned judgment dated 1.11.2017 the release application filed by the landlady for the need of her son under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act 13 of 1972 was allowed. The appeal filed by the tenant-petitioner herein was dismissed. The release application was filed by the landlady for the need of her son Kamal Gupta, who was stated to be unemployed and wants to carry on business.
(3.) Submission is that the need was contested by the tenant petitioner herein on the ground that the landlady has three shops. One shop is in possession of Salim, other shop is in possession of one Anil Kumar and the third shop is in possession of the present petitioner herein. It was submitted that after death of Mohd. Salim SCC suit filed against his son Jane Alam was allowed on 12.5.2017 and in pursuance thereof the shop has been vacated by him and therefore, that shop is available. It was further submitted that another shop, which was stated to be in possession of one Anil Kumar, was also vacated and after getting the same vacated from Anil Kumar was let out to one Dinesh Verma. It was further submitted that now even Dinesh Verma has vacated the shop in favour of the landlady and as such two shops are available to the landlady for the need of her son and therefore, her need is not bonafide. It was further submitted that Anil Kumar was wrongly shown as tenant on the basis of 5 years assessment 1987-92, whereas this is not the correct position. It was further submitted that the evidence in the shape of affidavits of various witness annexed from page 90 onwards of the present petition were not considered by the court below and as such the judgment suffers from non application of mind. It was submitted that in the Rent Control Inspector report Dinesh Verma was found to be in illegal possession and as such Dinesh Verma was inducted as an unauthorized occupant, therefore, the same is liable to be allotted to the petitioner and the landlord is liable to nominate the present petitioner for this purpose. He submits that second prayer in the petition has been made in this regard, which is also liable to be considered in accordance with law.;