MAHENDRA DAYAL,J. - (1.) The tenant petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 21.3.2017, passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Lucknow in P.A. Case No. 9/2010 whereby the release application filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed and the judgment and order dated 4.11.2017, passed by Special Judge (Ayurved Scam),CBI/Additional District Judge, Lucknow, whereby the Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2017, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.
(2.) The release application on the ground of bona fide need was filed by the respondent No. 3 in respect of a portion of House No. 13, AP. Sen Road, Lucknow, in which the petitioner is tenant in respect of two rooms, kitchen, veranda, courtyard and bathroom. The aforesaid premises was allotted to the petitioner about 30 years back. The rate of rent was Rs. 55/- per month. According to the respondent No. 3, a family settlement took place in the year 1987, in which the portion in occupation of the petitioner was allotted to the respondent No. 3. Since then he became land-lord of the disputed premises. The respondent No. 3 was an ex-serviceman and was also a disabled person. It was also stated by the respondent No. 3 in his release application that after the retirement, he wanted to settle at Lucknow and since he had no other occupation, therefore the premises in accommodation of the petitioner, be released in his favour.
(3.) The release application was contested by the petitioner by filing his written statement and it was said that House No. 13 A.P. Sen Road, Lucknow was owned by late Shiv Dayal Singh. After his death, his son B.K. Chaurasia was allotted a share in the house. The other family members were also allotted shares. According to the petitioner, the portion in his tenancy was allotted to Smt. Kanchan Lata Chaurasia who was real sister of the respondent No. 3. She also filed a suit for declaration being Suit No. 253 of 1990, which was decided on 8.2.1991 declaring her to be the owner of the said portion. Smt. Kanchan Lata died on 19.9.2007 and after her death, her son became owner and landlord. Thus the petitioner denied any relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the respondent No. 3. It was also said that Smt. Kanchan Lat had filed P.A. Case No. 775 of 1989 which was dismissed.;