- (1.) This petition was heard ex parte and was allowed by me by my judgment dated 24.4.1980. Subsequently, an application was moved on behalf of the respondent No. 2 for setting aside of the ex parte order. The said application was allowed by me after hearing learned counsels for both the parties on 3.11.1980. Thereafter, the petition was heard again on merits on 8.1.1981. The petition is directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Kanpur dated 8.4.1978 allowing an appeal and setting aside an order of eviction dated 31.10.1977 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972.
(2.) These are the acts : The petitioners are admittedly the owners and landlords of the accommodation in dispute of which the respondent No. 2 Sri Bhola Nath Sharma is the tenant. The petitioners filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) on the ground that they have a growing family, that the children have grown in years since the house was first let out, that the landlord Shambho Nath Sharma had just two living rooms for the residence of his entire family which was entirely inadequate for the needs of the family and that the tenant has other accommodation available to him in the same city where he could shift and that on a comparison of relative hardships also it would be found that the landlord would suffer more than the tenant. The application was contested by the tenant who asserted that the accommodation already available with the landlord was sufficient for his requirements that the tenant has no other accommodation available to him and that he would suffer irreparable loss if the application of the landlords was allowed. In the written statement, the tenant also took up the plea that there were other owners of the property than the two landlords who had filed the application under Section 21 and that, inasmuch as, those other co-owners have not joined in the making of the application, the same was incompetent in law.
(3.) The Prescribed Authority over-ruled the last objection of the tenant on the short ground that he had not set up in the written statement any plea of the effect that there were other landlords besides the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority then recorded a finding that having regard to the number of the members of the petitioner's family and their requirements as well as the present accommodation available with them, the landlords bonafide required the accommodation in dispute. On the question of comparison of relative hardship too the Prescribed Authority returned a finding in favour of the landlord. With these findings, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application and directed the eviction ofthe tenant. The tenant, thereupon, appealed. The appeal has been allowed by the learned District Judge.;