SARJU PRASAD Vs. HANSH KUMAR SONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition arises out of proceedings for release initiated by the respondents-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the Act) against the tenant-petitioner herein, in respect of the residential accommodation being house No. 103/107, Colonelganj, district Kanpur Nagar. The respondents-landlord sought release of the premises on the ground they were co-owners/landlord and had purchased the same from the erstwhile owner by means of a registered sale deed dated 27.02.1990 and the fact was duly informed to the tenant vide notice dated 22.07.1993. It was pleaded that the petitioner was tenant in the said premises consisting of two rooms, varandah, courtyard, latrine, bathroom and kitchen on the ground floor and two rooms and balcony on the first floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 11/-. It was further pleaded that family of respondent No. 1, consisting of himself, wife, one son aged about 24 years and three daughters aged about 19, 16 and 12 years respectively, were living in a tenanted accommodation consisting of one room and varandah at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-; family of respondent No. 2 consisting of himself, wife, one daughter aged about 25 years and two sons aged about 22 and 12 years respectively, were living in a tenanted accommodation consisting of one room in house No. 117/25, Geeta Nagar, Kanpur at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-; family of respondent No. 3 consisting of himself, wife and one son aged about 5 years, along with the family of respondent No. 4, were living in one room in house No. 103/71, which was in the tenancy of their uncle.

(2.) Proceedings were contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing a written statement alleging that the need set up by the landlord is frivolous and they do not need any accommodation for their personal use. It was further pleaded that no notice under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was served and, as such, the release application was not maintainable. Trial court vide order dated 09.06.2010 held that the accommodation in question was bona fidely required by the landlord and comparative hardship was also greater and, accordingly, allowed the release application. Tenant went up in appeal, which was also dismissed.

(3.) The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that six months' notice, as required under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, was not given, hence, release application was not maintainable and the Prescribed Authority wrongly and illegally held that since the proceedings were initiated after expiry of period of three years, as such, six months' notice was not required. It has further been submitted that the application filed by the respondents-landlord before appellate court under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. to take on record six months' notice dated 29.04.1994 was illegally allowed by the appellate-court and on the basis of the same, it was wrongly and illegally held that six months' notice was served on the tenant-petitioner.