SIDH NATH SHUKLA Vs. JUDGE SMALL CAUSES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B. P. Jauhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THIS is a writ petition on behalf of the tenant regarding a disputed premises House No. 68/17 Gandhi Nagar, Chhitwapur Pajawa, P. S. Husainganj, Lucknow. The contesting respondent is the landlady. A suit for eviction under section 21 (1) (a), (b) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was moved before the Prescribed Authority, which was numbered as P. A. Case No. 2 of 2003. The ground for release was that the house in question is 100 years old and is in dilapidated condition. It can fall any moment, besides, it require reconstruction for personal use of the landlady. Previously one Smt. Jagpala was the owner and landlady who sold it to the present landlady vide sale deed dated 12. 8. 1983. The release application was contested by filing objection/written statement by the petitioner and after exchange of affidavits, the release application was allowed vide judgment dated 19. 1. 2007. The said judgment was challenged under section 22 of the Act vide Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2007. The family of the landlady consists of herself, her husband one son Praveen Kumar Shukla and his wife Poonam Shukla and also two daughters who are married but are residing with landlady. She has one room on ground floor along with kitchen. The disputed accommodation consisted of one room on the ground floor alongwith kitchen, one corridor and toilets. There are three small rooms, which have almost collapsed and is not liable. It was also contended that the tenant has acquired another house in vacant condition in Rajajipuram, Lucknow in the name of his son. In the circumstances, the Trial Court released the accommodation taking into consideration the fact that the tenant has acquired an accommodation within the municipal limits.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has emphatically challenged the two concurrent findings of the Courts below. There are two submissions. The first submission is that the Courts below have placed reliance on an affidavit in which the name of the deponent was not mentioned and even without ascertaining as to who had filed the affidavit, reliance was placed and the said affidavit is the basis for allowing the application. This affidavit has been annexed as annexure-2 to the writ petition.