RAM SHANKER GUPTA Vs. SMT. LEELAWATI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady-respondent No. 1 against him under Sec. 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application was registered as rent case No. 90 of 1995. Prescribed Authority / 1st Additional J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 17.12.1997 allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order tenant-petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 22 of the Act being Rent Appeal No. 18 of 1998. Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar dismissed the said appeal also through judgment and order dated 15.9.2003.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgments and orders. The first point argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that landlady-respondent No. 1 was not the sole owner of the shop in dispute hence release application was not maintainable. This point is concluded by a Full Bench authority of this Court reported in 1987 Volume 1 A.R.C. 281. According to the said Full Bench authority release application filed by one or more of some of the landlords even without impleading the other landlords as proforma respondents is maintainable. D"he other point argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that an adjoining shop was released under Sec. 16 of the Act by order dated 19.6.2001 passed by R.C. & E.O./Additional City Magistrate (V), Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 32 of 1998. In the said release application it was mentioned that landlady required the shop in dispute for establishing her husband in business. In the release application giving rise to the instant writ petition need set up was for one of the sons of the landlady. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 19.6.2001 passed by R.C. & E.O. has not yet been executed and the previous illegal tenant Salil Kumar Srivastava is still continuing as tenant of the landlady. According to the learned Counsel the said shop was declared to be vacant on the ground that the landlady had let that out to said Salil Kumar Srivastava without any allotment order.

(3.) The findings of the bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded by both the Courts below do not .suffer from any such error which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.