R.K.Golati, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Sec. 21 (1) a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as "the Act"
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioner is a tenant of a double storeyed house v situated in Mohalla Puliva Garbi. Qasba Etah. The ground and first floor of that house bears Municipal No. 315, while the second floor is numbered as Municipal No. 316 (hereinafter referred to as House nos. 315 and 316, respectively). House no 315 was allotted to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs 12/-by an order dated 6-9-1958. The petitioner came to occupy the other house as licensee of one Krishna Gopal Sharrna, the erstwhile owner. The accommodation in house no. 313 consists of five big rooms. One varandah, one kitchen, a bathroom, a courtyard and a well on the ground floor. On the first floor there is one room and an. open terrace. On the second floor (i.e. house no. 3161 there are two rooms, a latrine and some other amenities. The third respondent Smt Kasturi Devi is the owner and landlady of the premises aforesaid She filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner and for the release of the accommodation under tenancy in her favour, on the grounds, inter alia, that she was living in a tenated accommodation at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month; the accommodation at her disposal besides being in deplorable and dilaoidated condition, was wholly inadequate for her residential need and the needs of her family, which consisted of as many as 22 members; that she purchased the house in question in the year 1981 for her personal occupation. The family included four sons out jof which three were married, their wives and grand children of growing age between 2 to 13 years. The accommodation available to her contained one room 12' x 8', a verandah 12' x 8', a Kothri with tinshed 8' x 6', one kitchen, a latrine and a small Angan She also asserted that relations between daughter-in-laws were not pleasant and cardial, and they often quarrelled. The atmosphere in the house was not congenial, and on account ot paucity of accommodation it was not feasible t? provide separate accommodation to her family members Further she has also three married daughters who often visit her with their husbands, but she has no place to 1make their stay comfortable. She also brought on record a notice served on her by her landlord to vacate the premises, a part of which had fallen, arid in support of it some photographs were filed by way of additional evidence before the prescribed authority. According to the case of the landlady, the tenant petitioner who was a retired employee of civil court, did not require the accommodation under his tenancy which he kept locked most of the time. Two of his sons who were married and employed decently in Rajastban were living comfortably with their families at the place of their employment. The petitioner's three daughters were also married and were living with their respective husband. The family of the petitioner consisted of himself and his wife only.
(3.) THE petitioner contested the release application. He claimed that one of his married daughter and her two children were also residing with him because his son-in-law who is a supervisor, was not able to kept his family with him, for he was required to supervise four to five districts. Further, a son who is employed at a place called Dhirmai, Etah, at a distance of 6 to 7 kilometres, often visits him and is living with him On consideration of rival claims the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application holding that the need of the respondent landlady was. genuine and bonafide The comparative hardship which is being caused to the landlady is greater than that which would be caused to the petitioner after his eviction, The appeal against that order was also dismissed. The present writ petition has been filed, challenging the two order passed by the courts below.;