Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
(2.) The petitioner, who is also the landlord of the disputed premises, has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 07.05.2012, passed in P.A. Case No.15 of 2003, whereby his release application was rejected and the judgment and order dated 20.05.2013, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Lucknow, whereby the Rent Appeal No.25 of 2012, filed by him, was dismissed.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the landlord of the premises in question, which is a single storyed building, bearing Municipal No.448/234/1, Nagariya, Thakurganj, Lucknow. It comprises of a latrine, bathroom and one pucca built room with open space. The premises was in occupation of Shri Gajanand Srivastava, who was a Class-IV employee and his family comprises of himself, his wife and two children. The father of the petitioner was the owner of the premises in question, who filed the release application on 31.05.2003 on the ground of bonafide need. During pendency of the release application, the father of the petitioner died on 18.10.2007 and the petitioner was substituted in his place. It was also stated in the release application that the premises in question was initially let out to Shri Kewal Kishore Verma on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-, but after his death, the opposite party No.3 became the tenant of the premises. The opposite party No.3 did not file any written statement before the learned Prescribed Authority, but filed an affidavit admitting that the building was let out to Shri Kewal Kishore Verma. When the opposite party No.3 did not give any evidence, his opportunity to give evidence was closed. Having no other alternative, the learned Prescribed Authority passed an order to proceed ex-parte. The opposite party No.3 only in order to delay the disposal of the release application, kept on moving frivolous applications one after the other and, therefore, having no other alternative, the petitioner had to approach this Court for a direction to the learned Prescribed Authority to decide the release application expeditiously. Thereupon, this Court directed the learned Prescribed Authority to decide the release application expeditiously within a period of six months. Even after the aforesaid order, the opposite party No.3 did not contest the same. The learned Prescribed Authority heard the petitioner and fixed 07.05.2012 for delivery of the judgment. However, the learned Prescribed Authority dismissed the release application on 07.05.2012 holding that the petitioner failed to prove his bonafide need in respect of the premises in question.;