ABDUL ALI Vs. RAMAKANT AWASTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 29th November, 2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority/First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow in Prescribed Authority Case No. 52/97 (Rama Kant Awasthi v. Abdul Ali) and judgment and order dated 16.7.2002 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2002 (Abdul Ali v. Rama Kant Awasthi). For proper adjudication of the case few details are necessary which are as follows:

(2.) Opposite party No. 1 filed petition under Section 21(i)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the petitioner without joining his brothers and sisters on the ground that opposite party is owner of house No. 32/22-Ga, Balmiki Mohal, Lalbagh, Lucknow. Petitioner filed written statement on 3.4.1980 denying the allegations made by opposite parties in application farther mentioning that opposite party is a co-landlord of the property in question. After death of the father of the opposite party, the property devolved upon his legal heirs i.e. two sons ad three daughters. Apart from this, the petitioner argues about the comparative hardship and details of the income of the opposite parties was also given in the written statement.

(3.) Mainly there were two questions to be answered by the lower courts. First, whether the petitioner was the sole owner of the property and had the right to maintain the suit and secondly, whether in comparison of the petitioner the opposite parties would suffer greater hardship if the property is not released. Both the lower courts have returned the concurrent findings in favour of the opposite parties and this Court does not see any reason to make any change in the findings of the Court. Well reasoned order has been passed by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority has given his full attention to the relative requirement of both the families and has come to a categorical finding that the case of the opposite parties was on a better footing and the hardship of the land lord was found to be greater than the tenant. Apart from this, the Prescribed Authority has also given a categorical finding that the petitioner has never made any attempt to find any alternative accommodation. The appellate court upheld the judgment of the Prescribed Authority and there are concurrent findings against the petitioner. Even before this Court petitioner has stated that he has never made any attempt for alternative accommodation.