AJAY KATIYAR Vs. SMT. CHHAMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Iqbal Ahmad learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kuldeep Saxena learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THROUGH this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 20.2.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 9 Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 58 of 2004 as well as judgment and order dated 20.7.2004 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in P.A. Case No. 57 of 1999 (Smt. Chhama and Ors. v. Ajay Katiyar and Anr.). Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the orders dated 20.2.2003 and 09.7.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority. Vide order dated 09.07.2002 petitioner's application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for spot inspection was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not serious to pursue this application as even after number of calls he has not appeared. Whereas vide order dated 20.02.2003 another application to appoint Advocate Commissioner was also rejected. It is thereafter vide order dated 20.07.2004 the Prescribed Authority has allowed the application of the respondents landlord to release the accommodation in dispute and vide order dated 20.02.2010 the appeal filed against the judgment of Prescribed Authority was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge.

(3.) IN reply to the release application an objection was filed by the tenant denying the bonafide need of the respondents. It was contended that there are five members in the tenant's family and apart from that one daughter of late Ram Kishan Katiyar was married, but still living there. It was also contended that the landlord has desired to enhance the rent at Rs. 700/ - per month and when the tenant refused, the release application was filed. It was also contended that the objector is a mechanic and is hardly earning Rs. 2000/ - per month and in case release application is allowed, he will not be able to arrange the alternative accommodation. The genuineness of the need of the disputed accommodation was denied by the objector.