MUNNA KHAN Vs. DEVI PRASAD BAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.P. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.R.J. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent. The respondent claims himself to be the owner and the landlord of house No. 745/1 and 745/2 which has been given new No. 831 situate in Chamanganj, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi. He filed release application in respect of above house for his bona fide need. The release application has been allowed by the Courts below by the impugned judgments and orders dated 19.3.2007 and 4.1.2010.

(2.) These two orders have been impugned in the present petition by the petitioner tenant.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised three arguments so as to assail the impugned orders. First the respondent is not the owner and landlord rather petitioner is tenant of one Bhawani Prasad. Secondly, the release application is premature as per section 21(1-A) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Lastly, respondent has sufficient alternative accommodation with him and therefore, his need for the house in dispute is not at all bona fide.