BAIDYANATH DAS Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition resisting a release of an accommodation after the landlord had filed an application Under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No XIII of 1972.

(2.) THE main ground upon which the landlord sought release is that he was an employee of the Indian Railways and had retired on 31 December, 1986, 'hat is, four years back from today. He required the accommodation to substantiate the only earning he has out of his pension.

(3.) THE fact of the matters is that since his retirement, the landlord has not had an occasion to receive any other vacant accommodation where he could accommodate himself and, thus, he is without an alternative and the only accommodation which be has is the shop of which he has sought release. The retirement of the landlord did not come as a surprise to the tenant notwithstanding that he bad been in the accommodation since 1965 There is no infirmity in any of the orders of the courts below to occasion interference of this Court by a writ of certiorari. There is neither any illegality nor any error manifest or otherwise for this Court to exercise it's discretion to come to the conclusion that the decisions ars prima -facie incorrect.