SHANTI DEVI Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE (E C ACT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are tenants of premises No. 82 Gaushala Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar on Rs. 110/- per month. The tenanted accommodation consists of two rooms, three tin sheds, one khaprail shed room, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and an open space adjoining the court yard. The respondent/landlord filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 being Rent Case No. 42 of 1999. The respondent/landlord asserted that they are in bonafide need of the accommodation for their family consisting of 12 persons, it was further asserted that at present the respondents are residing in a tenanted accommodation at Sheetla Bazar, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner/tenant contested the application, the Prescribed Authority recorded a finding of bonafide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord, accordingly, allowed the release application on 12 December 2007, aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act being Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2008. The appellate authority rejected the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority. Aggrieved, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the aforementioned orders.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant over the property in dispute which was trespassed, therefore, the release application for that portion of the accommodation was not maintainable. Secondly, it is submitted that the petitioners are practically in occupation of only one room, the other portion are KACHCHA construction. It is, therefore, contended that question of part release of the accommodation was not considered in terms of Rule 16(1)(d) being mandatory.

(3.) In rebuttal, it is contended that in the release application the respondent/landlord had specified the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner/tenant which was not denied in the objection/written statement, this plea is being raised for the first time before this Court in writ jurisdiction. The orders impugned are otherwise lawful and legal and requires no interference.