MAHESH SINGH Vs. VII ADDITIONAL DISTT JUDGE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Yog, J. The present writ peti tion has been filed challenging the order dated 19th April, 1978 passed by respon dent No. 2 and order dated 28th July, 1980 passed by respondent No; 1 whereby the application of the landlord-petitioners under Section 16 (l) (b), UP. Urban Build ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called the Act) was rejected.

(2.) I have perused the orders carefully. The Delegated Authority/rent Control and Eviction Officer in its order dated 19-4-1978 (Annexure VI to the writ peti tion) has observed that the landlord and his family was living in another House No. 116 Faithfulganj, Kanpur, which com prises of 5 rooms 8' x 8', 2 rooms 12' x 8' and courtyard and 2 galleries, verandah, kitchen and latrine. The family of the landlord consisted of four couples (8 adult brothers, 7 adult sons and daughters and 2 minor children ). The District Judge did not care to scrutnise the matter and ap pears to have proceeded in a mechanical manner to accept the order dated 19th April, 1978 passed by the Delegated Authority. The Courts below failed to ap preciate that the need of the landlord has definitely changed. Apart from the material on record, application for release was filed in April, 1974. About 25 years have passed. World has changed. The landlord need must have changed. In view of the above, it is appropriate that the landlord's should be required to file a fresh application for release under Section 16 (l) (b) of the Act so that the authorities may determine the case on merit in accord ance with law. The landlord is permitted to amend the application and file afresh evidence in support of his case, if so ad vised.