Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Srivastava appearing for caveator respondents and perused the record.

2. The petitioner claims herself to be tenant in house No. C20/2-X-4, Mohalla Habibpura, Nai Pokhari, Varanasi City. Case set up by the petitioner in the Court below is that she was a tenant of Smt. Rewati Devi wife of Sri Vishnu Gopal Srivastava at the rate of Rs. 140/- per month till her death. Thereafter the rent was paid to her heirs and legal representatives namely Suresh Srivastava, Dinesh Srivastava and Ramesh Srivastava, sons of Vishnu Gopal Srivastava.

3. It is stated that Smt. Rani Srivastava wife of Suresh Kumar Srivastava purchased a room measuring 8' x 8' = 64 Sq. feet in the premises in question through a registered sale-deed dated 28.11.2002 and constructed a latrine and bathroom in an area of 3' x 4' feet. It is stated that subsequently plaintiff-respondent Imran Ahmad purchased the aforesaid 260 sq. feet of land including the constructed portion thorough registered sale-deed dated 24.11.2003 from its owner Smt. Rani Srivastava.

4. The first contention of the counsel for petitioner is that from perusal of sale-deed dated 24.11.2003, it is evident that plaintiff respondent purchased only a room area 8' x8' = 64 Sq. feet alongwith latrine bathroom area 3' x4' feet out of total area 290.8 sq. feet of the premises in question. It is stated that apart from the aforesaid room and latrine bathroom purchased by respondent No. 1, there are two other rooms on the ground floor and one room on first floor alongwith latrine and kitchen which is under tenancy of the petitioner and that rightful owners of her tenanted portion are heirs of Smt. Rewati Devi and not respondent No. 1. However, inspite of this fact, plaintiff-respondent treating himself to be the owner of entire area of the premises in question, filed an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as P.A. case No. 17 of 2005, Imran Ahmad v. Tamanna Bano @ Sadhana Devi, in the Court of Civil Judge(JD) Havali/Prescribed Authority, Varanasi for recovery of rent and release of the premises.

5. The application was contested by the petitioner by filing her objection stating therein that she is a tenant in the premises in question since the year 1974, has been continuously paying rent to its erstwhile owner Smt. Rewati Devi at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month including electricity charges at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. It is also stated that since rent receipts were not issued by the erstwhile owner, the tenant petitioner was continuously depositing rent at the rate of Rs. 140/- in case No. 548 of 1996, Tamanna Bano and others v. Rewati Devi, under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

6. The order of Prescribed Authority is challenged on the ground that Prescribed Authority without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and without taking into consideration the genuine need and comparative hardships of the petitioner, has passed order dated 24.2.2009 allowing application of respondent No. 1 and directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within two months. In the circumstances, the order is illegal and liable to be set aside.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of trial Court, the petitioner preferred rent appeal No. 32 of 2009 alongwith an application paper No. 6Ga for grant of temporary injunction supported by affidavit. During pendency of the appeal, the respondent also filed a misc. case for execution of the order dated 24.2.2009, in which Parwana for eviction has been issued. An application paper No. 26 Ga for expeditious hearing of the case was also moved by the petitioner.

8. Apart from the above, the petitioner moved an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to enquire into the matter as regards other accommodation of respondent No. 1.

9. The lower appellate Court rejected application of the petitioner for temporary injunction alongwith appl