SUDHIR NARAIN, J. - (1.) THIS writ peti­tion is directed against the order of the prescribed authority dated 23-5-1997 al­lowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondent No. 2 and the order of appellate authority dated 1-3-2000 dis­missing the appeal against the said order.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 is the landlord of the disputed premises. He filed an applica­tion for release of the disputed accom­modation against three tenants namely, S.S. Thapa, B.S. Rana and Sri H. Ahmad under Section 21 (l)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act). Sri S.S. Thapa is a tenant of one room, kitchen and half verandah. B.S. Rana was also a tenant of similar accommodation while Shri H. Ahmad is tenant of the premises compris­ing of two rooms, half verandah and a kitchen. In the application, it was stated that the accommodation in occupation of the aforesaid tenants was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction. The landlord is an En­gineer in Indian Airlines and is going to retire on 31-1-2001. He has to settle his sister Usha who is unmarried and another sister Niloufer who is menially retarded. He will construct after demolition of the building for residential purpose. The application was contested only by two tenants, namely, S.S. Thapa and B.N. Rana. Sri H. Ahmad did not file any written objection. It was denied that the disputed accommodation was in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. The need of the landlord-respondent was also denied.
(3.) THE prescribed authority made a local inspection of the premises in dispute and he recorded a finding that the need of the landlord was bona fide and he will occupy it for residential purpose. On a comparative hardship, it was found that he would suffer a greater hardship in case the application was rejected. The application was accordingly allowed. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order. The appeal has been dismissed by Respon­dent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 1-3-2000.;