Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's petition resisting a release of an accommodation after the landlord had filed an application Under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No XIII of 1972.
(2.) THE main ground upon which the landlord sought release is that he was an employee of the Indian Railways and had retired on 31 December, 1986, 'hat is, four years back from today. He required the accommodation to substantiate the only earning he has out of his pension. The court has heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner in detail. The court has been taken through the record to show that the needs of the tenant have not been considered. From the record it appears that the authorities below have gone into the comparative needs between the tenant and the landlord It is not disputed that (a) the landlord has retired and (b) hid moved an application seeking release almost about two years after his retirement. It was contended before this Court that the amount of pension which he has and the gratuity which be has received consequent upon his retirement, there is no occasion for the landlord to substantiate his Income This Court is afraid that it cannot accept this argument as the pension and the post retirement benefits of an employee in reference to the context are his privacy and no tenant can contend that the landlord's pension and post retirement benefits are sufficient so that he does not need any additional income.
(3.) THE fact of the matters is that since his retirement, the landlord has not had an occasion to receive any other vacant accommodation where he could accommodate himself and, thus, he is without an alternative and the only accommodation which be has is the shop of which he has sought release. The retirement of the landlord did not come as a surprise to the tenant notwithstanding that he bad been in the accommodation since 1965 There is no infirmity in any of the orders of the courts below to occasion interference of this Court by a writ of certiorari. There is neither any illegality nor any error manifest or otherwise for this Court to exercise it's discretion to come to the conclusion that the decisions ars prima -facie incorrect.;