AMBRISH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.S. Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 14.1.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Lucknow/ Appellate Authority allowing appeal filed by tenant/respondent, consequently rejecting petitioner's release application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the the U.P. Act 13 of 1972).

(3.) FURTHER pleaded in written statement that petitioner No. 1 alongwith other co-landlords gave a consent for allotment of one door shop situated in ground floor of house No. 488/66, Daliganj, Lucknow accordingly allotted in favour of one Sri Satish Kumar as per provisions of Section 17(1 )(1) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 read with Rule 10(7) of the Rules. So, need of the petitioner No. 1 is not genuine and bona fide in comparison to their need, release application moved only to enhance rent of the shop, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, PA Case No. 68 of 1997 {Ambrish and others v. Bhuushan Lai Kapoor) registered before the Prescribed Authority/ACAM-lll, Lucknow allowed by judgment and order dated 15.9.2006 with observation that need of applicant/petitioner No. 1 is more genuine in comparison to the tenants/respondents.