JAGDISH PRASAD RAWAT Vs. RANGILE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent caveator. This petition by the tenants is directed against concurrent orders dated 7.7.2006 and 5.7.2010 by which both the Courts below have allowed the release application of the respondent landlord.

(2.) It appears that the respondent landlord along with his wife filed a release application No. 21 of 2004 under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the release of the disputed accommodation on the ground that the premises in their occupation was very meagre and a family about 13 people they had to accommodate themselves in three rooms and therefore, it was required for their personal need. The tenant contested the said application on the ground that the landlord had other premises available and they were living comfortably in their house. Both the Courts below after considering all the facts have recorded a categorical finding of fact that there was no genuine bona fide need and comparative hardship.

(3.) It is urged that since the application was filed within 3 years of the purchase by the landlord, the application was incompetent and further the landlord had purchased a large piece of vacant land, therefore, he could make arrangements for his accommodation.