Bhupendra Kumar Rathi, J. - (1.) THE opposite party No. 3 was a tenant of one room, DALAAN and common latrine, bathroom on the ground floor of house No. 56/15 Shatranji Mohal, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner is its landlord. He moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for the release of the same for his personal need. The application was rejected by the prescribed authority by order, Annexure 3 to the petition. Against that order, the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 28/89, which was also rejected on 26.7.1990 by order, Annexure 5 to the petition. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court in the extra -ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Sri G. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for respondent No. 3 at the time of hearing of this petition and therefore he could not be heard. However, I have gone through the record of the case.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner is in occupation of one room, joint court -yard and latrine on the ground floor. There is also a room and tin -shed on the first floor, which is alleged to be in the possession of the sister of the petitioner since long, who is living with the petitioner. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife and two children. He allege that the accommodation is not sufficient for his family as his children have grown up. That the children require separate room for their studies. He, therefore, allege that there is bona fide need of the premises.
(3.) THE learned prescribed authority as well as the appellate court has not accepted the need to be bona fide. They have observed that the sister of the petitioner is not a member of the family as defined in Section 3(g) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and that therefore, her need cannot be considered. That the accommodation in possession of the petitioner is sufficient for his family.;