- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. The petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) of the Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) for release of the premises in dispute. It was alleged by the petitioner in his ap plication that petitioner's family consists of his mother, his wife and his daughter and a room in the ground floor is occupied by his mother, and in a room in first floor is occupied by the petitioner and remaining portion of the building on the ground floor is occupied by heirs of one Sri Mani Ram original tenant (contesting respondents ). It was further alleged in the application that relations between his wife and mother are not very good and there is paucity of accommodation as the petitioners resid ing alongwith his wife and daughter in one room in the first floor. According to the petitioner the contesting respondents have three accommodations are greater hardship will occasion to the landlord than the contesting respondent in case his ap plication is rejected. The Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence on record allowed the application on 10-7-1997. The contesting respondents who are heirs of Mani Ram filed an appeal. This was allowed on 30-5-1998, hence the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. K. Arora, Counsel for the contesting respon dents. The Prescribed Authority had ac cepted the case of the petitioner on the finding that the relations between mother and wife of the petitioner are not good and also on the ground that paucity of accom modation in the family of petitioner and as such his need is bona fide. While consider ing the hardship the Prescribed Authority held that there were three accommoda tions in possession of the contesting respondents. One house No. 67 situate in Punjabi Colony, Chandausi; the second house is also situate in Punjabi Colony which was earlier taken on rent from one Baldeo Raj but later on purchased; and the third accommodations was situate in dis pensary road Chandausi. The appellate Court has reversed the finding of the bona fide need on the ground that invitation cards for different functions were issued in the name of the mother of the petitioner and as such rela tions between the mother and wife of the petitioner can not be said to be strained. The Prescribed Authority had recorded a finding not only that the relations between the mother and wife of the petitioner are not good but also on the ground that there was paucity of accommodation to the petitioner's family. This finding has not been reversed. In view of this order passed by appellate Court is wrong. So far as the question of comparative hardship is con cerned, the Prescribed Authority, in view of three accommodations available to the contesting respondents, has rightly come to the conclusion that in case the applica tion is rejected the petitioner will suffer greater hardship than the contesting respondents. In view of this writ petition is allowed. The appellate order dated 30-5-1998 is quashed and that of the Prescribed Authority dated 10-7-1997 is upheld. However, the respondents may not be evicted for a period of three months. With these observations the writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed. .;