R.K. Gulati, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and arises out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as "the Act."
(2.) THE dispute relates to an accommodation which consists of two bedrooms and a drawing-cum-dining room, alongwith other amenities with a separate lawn and garage in the tenancy of the petitioner in a portion of House No. 7/157-C, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur. THE 3rd respondent, L. D. Tandon, (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord") asserting himself to be the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family, consisting of himself, his wife and three sons, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, for release of the accommodation aforesaid on the ground that the same is required for bona fide needs of his youngest son Dr. Ashok Tandon and his family. At the relevant time when this application was filed, Dr. Ashok Tandon had gone to London for higher studies and training. His wife, Dr. Anita Tandon later, followed her husband to England after obtaining her M. D. Degree in India THE application for release was filed on the allegations that Dr. Ashok Tandon with his family intended to return to India in near future and wanted to settle down permanently in Kanpur. It is no longer in dispute that Dr. Ashok Tandon along with his family has returned to India and has settled permanently in Kanpur where he and his wife both are practising medicine. The application for release was granted by the Prescribed Authority on the finding that the need asserted by the landlord was bona fide and the comparative hardship of the landlord was greater than that of the tenant. An appeal against that order was dismissed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. It is in this background that the present writ petition has been filed impugning the orders passed by the courts below. Pending admission of the writ petition, the landlord was served and was required to file counter affidavit. The parties have exchanged their affidavits and are duly represented. The petition is ripe for hearing. With the consent of the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
(3.) FOR the petitioner it is contended that the need for the additional accommodation for Dr. Ashok Tandon and his family is not genuine and bona fide. Further, without considering the real extend of the accommodation in occupation of the landlord in premises No. 7/157-B and also a part accommodation in premises No 7/157-C, the application for release has been granted. Another point put forward was that in considering the question of hardship Rule 16 (I) (d) of the Rules framed under the Act was left out of consideration and, therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. As the controversy raised in this writ petition revolves on the question whether the accommodation at the disposal of the landlord was enough to meet the requirement of Dr. Ashok Tandon, it has become necessary to refer in some detail about the accommodation at the disposal of the landlord and his family. So far as the size of the family is concerned, it consists of the landlord, his wife, three sons Dr. Ravi Tandon, Suresh Tandon and Dr. Ashok Tandon, aged between 43 and 47 years with their wives and seven grand children The landlord is a senior medical practitioner having standing of over 38 years. Dr. Ravi Tandon is a medical practitioner of 15-16 years standing. Suresh Tandon is engaged in wholesale business in medicines and pharmaceuticals. The youngst son Dr. Ashok Tandon and his wife Dr. Anita Tandon are practising medicine at Kanpur from the year 1985 since their return from England.;