Bhagwati, J. - (1.) There is a house bearing No. 10-A situate at Khuldabad in the city of Allahabad belonging to respondent No. 3. This house consists of a ground floor and a first floor. There are two tenements on the ground floor and two tenements on the first floor. Each of the two tenements in the first floor is in the possession of a tenant. The tenement on the northern side of the ground floor is in the possession of respondent No. while the tenement on the southern side is in the possession of the appellant as a tenant since the last over 35 years. The appellant pays rent of Rs. 4/- per month in respect of the tenement in his occupation. Respondent No. 3, after determining the tenancy of the appellant, made an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad under Section 3 of the U. P. Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1947 for permission to file a suit to eject the appellant on the ground that she bona fide required the rented premises in the possession of the appellant for her use and occupation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on a consideration of the evidence led before him, came to the conclusion that the need of respondent No. 3 for the rented premises was not bona fide and genuine and on this view, he rejected the application of respondent No. 3 by an order dated 23rd February, 1972. Respondent No.3 preferred a revision application against the decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the Commissioner and, on the coming into force of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No.13 of 1972), this revision application came to be transferred to the District Court under Sec. 43 (m) of that Act and it was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 245 of 1972. The District Judge by an order dated 12th January, 1973 agreed with the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and dismissed the appeal.
(2.) However, within a short time thereafter, respondent No. 3, undaunted by her failure, filed an application before the Prescribed Authority on 18th January, 1974 under Section 21 (1) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 claiming release of the rented premises in her favour on the ground that she bona fide required them for occupation by herself and the members of her family for residential purposes. The Prescribed Authority held that Explanation (iv) to Section 21 (1) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was attracted in the present case, since the ground floor of house No. 10-A constituted a building, a part of which was under tenancy of the appellant and the remaining part was in the occupation of respondent No. 3 for residential purposes, and hence it must be held to be conclusively established that the rented premises were bona fide required by respondent No. 3. The Prescribed Authority also went into the question of comparative hardship of the appellant and respondent No. 3 and observed that greater hardship would be caused to respondent No.3 by refusal of her application than what would be caused to the appellant by granting it. On this view, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application of respondent No. 3 and released the rented premises in her favour.
(3.) The appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority preferred an appeal to the District Court, Allahabad. The District Court agreed with the view taken by the Prescribed Authority that Explanation (iv) to Section 21 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the facts of the present case and "that fact conclusively proved that the building was bona fide required" by respondent No. 3. But on the question of greater hardship, the District Court disagreed with the conclusion reached by the Prescribed Authority and held that the appellant was likely to suffer greater hardship by granting the application than what respondent No. 3 would suffer by its refusal. The District Court accordingly allowed the appeal and rejected the application of respondent No. 3 for release of rented premises.;