SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners defendants/tenants and Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent/landlord. FACTS:-
(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff respondent is undisputedly the Owner and landlord of house No.52k, Azadganj, Sipari Bazar, Jhansi. The said house is a very old building. As per affidavit of the plaintiff-respondent/landlord dated 27.11.2013, filed in evidence in P.A. Case No.22 of 2013 (Satya Prakash Agrawal v. Praveen Kumar Pateria and another), the defendants-petitioners and their ancestors have been tenant for more than 100 years. The defendant-petitioner no.1 is working as Technician in the Railway Workshop, Kanpur and is getting about 1500/- as house rent allowance. He is entitled for railway quarter for residential purpose, but he has not moved any such application for residential accommodation and is occupying the disputed premises at the rent of Rs. 11.50 per month. It is also stated in paragraph 13 of the affidavit that the defendants-petitioners have a plot in locality "Lahargird". The defendant-respondent no.2 is the mother of the defendant-petitioner no.1. She is also getting family pension after the death of her husband. These facts even have not been disputed before me.
(3.) The plaintiff-respondent has another house being house No.89, Azadganj, Sipari Bazar, Jhansi in which he is carrying on business of electrical goods on the ground-floor, while the first floor is being occupied for the residential purpose. His family consists of five members. He had filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 on the ground of bonafide need of the disputed house being P.A. Case No. 22 of 2013, which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by judgment dated 16.1.2017.The release application of the plaintiff-respondent was rejected on the ground that the reason for bonafide need shown by him in the plaint as well as in the aforesaid affidavit filed in evidence are self-contradictory, inasmuch as, while in the release application he has set up the bonafide need of the disputed house for residential purpose for his son and his family and for garage and drawing room etc. but in the aforesaid affidavit filed in evidence he stated the need of the disputed house for residence and also for expansion of business.;