GAYA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur. J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the tenant for quashing the order dated 23-7-1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Om Prakash, landlord (respondent No. 1) and also the order dated 29-5-1992 passed by the Appellate Authority. The landlord Om Prakash Gupta filed a release application on the ground inter alia that in the ground floor of House No. 360/2 Faithfulganj, Kanpur there were two rooms and in one of the said rooms the petitioner Gaya Prasad Sharma was a tenant on a rental of Rs. 20/- per month, that the other room in the ground floor was in the tenancy of Gopi Sharma, that in the first floor which was in his occupation there were two rooms, a tinshed and a kitchen; that there was only one latrine in the ground floor of the house which was being used by all the mem bers of his family as well as members of the family of both the tenants ; that his family consisted of himself, his wife, a son Dheeraj a daughter Meenu besides his father, mother, grand mother, a brother and sister ; that he was facing acute hardship on account of shortage of accommodation in his possession and therefore, the room in the tenancy of the petitioner be released in his favour. The release application was contested by the petitioner Gaya Prasad Sharma on the ground inter alia that the was in occupation of one room only and was also using the court yard and latrine in common with other tenant and the landlord; that the house was purchased benami by Binda Prasad, grand father of the landlord and after his (Binda Prasad) death, his all heirs had become the owners thereof and Om Prakash alone was not the owner of the same; that Smt. Nand Rani, the grandmother of the landlord lived in a different locality and the marriage of landlord's sister Km. Usha Gupta had been settled ; that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was quite sufficient looking to his requirement; that he was a poor man and was getting a salary of Rs. 880 per month and his daugther was of marriageable age; that if the single room in his occupation was released, he will be thrown on the street.

(2.) THE parties led evidence in support of their respective cases by filing af fidavits and some documentary evidence. THE Prescribed Authority held that the need of the landlord was bona fide and that the landlord will suffer greater hardship if the application was rejected as against the hardship likely to be suffered by the tenant from the grant of the applicant. On these findings the release application was allowed by the order dated 23-7-1990. THE appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge on 29-5-1992.