JALPA PRASAD Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter- alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 24-9-1988 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar (respondent No. 9 ).

(2.) THE dispute relates to an accommodation in premises No. 50/89, Naughara, Kanpur, the details whereof are given in the release application referred to hereinafter. THE said accommodation has hereinafter been referred to as "the disputed accommodation".

(3.) IT was, inter-alia, further alleged in the said release application that the family of the landlords/applicants was a large one comprising of the applicant No. 1 (Smt. Sarju Devi - proforma respondent No. 7 herein), applicant No. 2 (Jalpa Prasad petitioner herein), his wife, three daughters and son; and that the name of the said son was Vinod Kumar, and he was aged about 20 years. IT was, inter- alia, further alleged in the said release application that the applicant No. 2 (Jalpa Prasad - petitioner herein) was also sitting idle since many years and he wanted to start a cloth business and establish his son therein too. IT was, inter-alia, further alleged in the said release application that the disputed accommodation was ideally situated for cloth business, as it was situated in the cloth market, and the said Jalpa Prasad (petitioner herein) would be able to settle his son in life and earn his living. IT was, inter-alia, further alleged in the said release application that it was not proper to allow an adult son to sit idle and it was high time for the applicant No. 2 (Jalpa Prasad - petitioner herein) to fulfil his duties as father to settle the son in life; and that in fact, the said Vinod Kumar had inclination towards cloth business and the applicant No. 2 (Jalpa Prasad petitioner herein) had knowledge of the said business and proper contacts; and that the applicant No. 2 (Jalpa Prasad - petitioner herein) had once done cloth business himself.