JAMEEL AHMAD Vs. RIYAZ AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 26.11.2008 passed by Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 4th, Kanpur Nagar/Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 67 of 2003 and order dated 7.9.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 04 of 2009, Jameel Ahmad v. Riyaz Ahmad and others, appended as Annexures 5 and 8 to the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that an application under section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the tenanted accommodation was filed by the landlord-respondent No. 1-Riyaz Ahmad. The release application was contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing written statement denying plaint allegations of the landlord-respondent. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Prescribed Authority during pendency of release application, who submitted his report in the month of November, 2007. Thereafter, the evidences were adduced by the parties. Subsequently, on 26.11.2008, the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application of the landlord-respondent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26.11.2008, the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 04 of 2009, Jameel Ahmad v. Riyaz Ahmad and others, which was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar on 7.9.2010 after recording cogent reason.

(3.) The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no alternative accommodation and plot in Vishwa Bank Colony is land hence, explanation to 3rd proviso to section 21(1)(a) would not be attracted. Hence the contention of landlord-respondent is that the petitioner had purchased House No. A-150 Vishwa Bank Colony, Pokharpur, Kanpur Nagar in the name of his family member. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the Courts below have misread the written statement filed by him in which it was categorically stated that the property mentioned at Pokharpur, Kanpur Nagar is absolutely non habitable and further his two sons who are residing in Dubai have no concern with the petitioner; that both the Courts below have failed to give any finding pertaining to the categorical assertion made by the petitioner that his tenanted accommodation falls partly in the premises in question and its 1/3rd part situate in the adjoining house which has separate municipal number and not owned by the respondents. It is lastly argued by the petitioner that since release application was filed on the basis of material concealment the same is not maintainable and as such the order impugned have caused gross miscarriage of justice.