Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Writ Petition No. 3114 of 2010 was connected with Writ Petition No. 21442 of 2010. It is also on the same facts and is between the same parties. Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Advocate in Writ Petition No. 21442 of 2010 on 16.8.2010 had adopted the arguments made in Writ Petition No. 3114 of 2010 by Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner therein, hence both the writ petitions are being decided together.

3. The petitioner has filed writ petition No. 3114 of 2010, Avinash Chandra Srivastava v. Smt. Kiran Srivastava, for quashing the judgment and order dated 8.1.2010 in Civil Revision No. 262 of 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Allahabad as well as the judgment and decree dated 9.5.2007 in S.C.C. Suit No. 34 of 1999 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad.

4. By judgment and decree dated 9.5.2007,the Judge Small Causes Court decreed SCC Suit No. 34 of 1999 by directing the tenant petitioner to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the accommodation in question under his tenancy within a period of two months to the landlady. The Revisional Court in its judgment and order dated 8.1.2010 has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 9.5.2007 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court,Allahabad.

5. Writ petition No. 21442 of 2010, Avinash Chandra Srivastava v. Smt. Kiran Srivastava, has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 19.3.2010 in Rent Control Appeal No. 262 of 2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad whereby the appeal was dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.5.2009 in P.A. Case No. 3 of 1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad. The aforesaid judgments and orders have been passed on the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed on behalf of the respondent on the ground of personal need. The relief prayed for in the application is only for part of the house and ejectment is only sought from part of the tenancy wherein the original tenancy was created for the entire house in favour of the petitioner.

6. Brief facts of the case are that Sri K.D. Misra, landlord let out house Nos. 603 and 501 Panna Lal Road, Colonelganj, Allahabad to Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava. Smt. Kiran Srivastava is second wife of Sri Janhavi Kumar, who is the younger brother of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that Sri Janhavi Kumar was financial weak, hence he permitted him to live with him in the house as a licensee since the year 1964.

7. The house in dispute was sold by the landlord Sri K.D. Misra in favour of Smt. Vijai Lakshami on 15.3.1965. She sold the house to Sri Nand Gopal Badhawan on 15.9.1983; that later on he died on 4.11.1992 leaving behind his widow, two sons including Ravi Bhushan Bhadhawan and six daughters.

8. The case set up by the petitioner in the Courts below was that after the death of his first wife his younger brother Janhavi Kumar married with Krian Pandey out side his caste which created rift between the petitioner and his brother who lodged an FIR against him alleging that petitioner had not only threatened him but had also blocked the passage for egress and ingress of his family to utilize the roof. The police after investigation submitted final report which was accepted by the Court.

9. The petitioner filed original suit No. 877 of 1993 on 31.7.1993 against Janhvi Kumar for ejectment as the licence had been terminated which is still pending. It is claimed by the petitioner that Janhavi Kumar then tried to induct outsiders in the premises in the portion occupied by the petitioner which compelled him to file original suit No. 1080 of 1993 against Janhavi Kumar. Temporary injunction was granted in the suit which has been affirmed up to the High Court. This s