JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 3 to 6.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the judgment and order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1, i.e., Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 73 of 2013 (Shailendra Singh and Others Vs. Vijay Kumar Saini) and to affirm the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e., A.C.M.M./ Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar.

3. The brief facts of the petition are that Shailendra Singh, husband, landlord-respondent no. 3 and father of landlord/respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 filed an application against tenant-petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1972”) before Prescribed Authority praying for release of the tenanted portion shown in schedule B to the release application. It was stated in the release application that the tenanted portion of house no. B-6, Khapra Mohal, Chawni, Kanpur Nagar, is in occupation of the tenant-petitioner at the rent of Rs. 50 per month. The rented premises is too old and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 apply thereto. The family of landlord consists of himself, his wife and three children. He has four rooms, two stores, one kitchen and a dilapidated room for residence and he needs one room and one store more for his wife; he needs one separate room each for his two daughters, Km. Ruchi Singh and Km. Suchi Singh, and for his son, Saurabh Singh; he also needs two rooms for dining room and drawing room. He has no other accommodation available in the city. The tenant-petitioner can get alternative accommodation allotted in his name. The need of the landlord is genuine and bonafide and comparative hardship is also in his favour. Hence, the application may be allowed.

4. The tenant-petitioner filed his objections to the release application stating that the landlord has failed to state how he became the owner of the property. In the absence of such an averment, the tenant-petitioner is unable to accept or reject the contents of paragraph 1 of the release application. The rent of the disputed accommodation was 25 rupees earlier and 50 rupees per month now. The landlord has failed to state in which part of the house of the landlord the disputed tenanted portion is situated. The landlord has shown the age of his family members less than their actual age. He has nine rooms in his possession and a shop of general merchant in the ground floor is run by his son, Saurabh Singh. Five persons are living in nine rooms. Some rooms are let out to the tenants in every season who make “petha”. The marriage of the landlord's daughter have been settled and they will certainly go away from the house. Thereafter only three persons will remain in the house. The tenant-petitioner has only one room and a kitchen under tenancy. The daughters of the tenant-petitioner are marriageable but on account of economic constraints he is not able to marry them. He sells flowers in basket and does part time photography and earns Rs. 2,000/-to Rs 3,000/-. The landlord has agricultural land, house, shop and other means of livelihood.

The tenant resides with his wife, two daughters and a son in the tenanted portion. The application has been filed only after the tenant-petitioner refused to pay rent of Rs. 500/-per month to the landlord and then he directed him to vacate the house in October, 2010. He is tenant of the premises in dispute since the time of his father. The tenanted portions vacated by Tulsi Ram, Rameshwar Gupta, Rajendra Prasad, Laxmi Chand and Ashok Kumar. Vijay Bahadur Singh are available with the landlord. He has obtained possession of the rented portions through court which were let out to Raj Kumar and Smt. Madhuri Gupta. The landlord has sufficient accommodation for the need of his family and need set up by him is not bonafide and