GUDDU Vs. CHANDRA KISHORE SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the concurrent findings of bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court in favour of the respondent-landlord in proceedings arising out of an application under Sec. 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Prescribed Authority has held that the need of the respondent-landlord for additional residential accommodation is genuine and bonafide, as his family comprises of six members whereas, he is in possession of one only room and verandah on the ground floor, one room and kitchen on the first floor and one store room on the second floor.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the appeal, the petitioner-tenant sought amendment in the memo of appeal whereby a ground was taken to the effect that the release application was not maintainable as six month's notice contemplated under the Ist proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec. 21 was not given before filing the release application.

(3.) The Appellate Court has dealt with the said argument in great detail. It has observed that the said plea was not taken by the petitioner in the written statement nor at the stage of hearing before the Prescribed Authority. Even in the original memo of appeal, no such plea was taken. It has placed reliance on a notice dated 7.7.2015, which was brought on record by the respondent-landlord in appeal and was also duly admitted in evidence.By the said notice, the petitioner-tenant was asked to vacate the tenanted premises. The contention of the petitioner-tenant that the notice and the postal receipt are forged documents has been repelled.