RADHA RAMAN MISHRA Vs. UMA GUPTA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K. Srivastava for the respondent caveator. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent orders dated 25.5.2009 and 6.4.2010 by which the release application of the respondent landlord has been allowed by both the Courts below.

(2.) It appears that the respondent landlord preferred a Rent Case No. 14 of 2007 for releasing the disputed accommodation consisting of a room, varanda etc. in House No. 83A/18, Juhi Khurd, Kanpur which was in the tenancy of the petitioner at Rs. 20/- per month on the ground of personal need as he had a large family and was forced to live in the second floor with only two rooms with other amenities and due to shortage of accommodation his son had to live in a rented accommodation. The petitioner tenant contested the application that married daughters were staying at their in laws and the landlord had got vacated certain other accommodation and therefore, had sufficient space for the entire family. After the parties had led their evidence, the Court below after considering the extent of accommodation available to the landlord and the family members and after recording a finding that due to paucity of space his son was forced to reside with his family in a tenanted accommodation, allowed the release application.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the landlord had got vacated certain other accommodation which was available to him and therefore, the finding of both the Courts below is vitiated. As noted by the Appellate Court itself that except for bald assertion, no evidence was brought forward to substantiate the plea inasmuch as even the detail of the tenant etc. was not given. This finding of fact has not been shown to be vitiated.