Srinarain Sahai, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Prescribed Authority (Rent Control) dated 25 -10 -1986 (Annexure 4), allowing the application for eviction moved by respondent No. 3 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the order of XII Additional District Judge, Lucknow dated 20th April, 1988 (Annexure 4) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the said order. The application under Section 21(1)(a) was moved by respondent No. 3 for the release of House No. 197, Talab Gagni Shukla, Model Houses, Lucknow which was occupied by the petitioner as a tenant. It was alleged by respondent No. 3 that he is the sole owner and landlord of the said house by virtue of a partition that had taken place between him and his brother Munni Lal and the said house is bona fide needed by respondent No. 3 for his personal use and occupation. The respondent No. 3 who lives at present in House No. 118/136 Cantonment Road, Lucknow has alleged that this house does not have sufficient accommodations for his family members and they are put to great hardship and inconvenience. The application was contested by the petitioner on a number of grounds. However, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application under Section 21(1)(a) and directed that the disputed house be released in favour of Respondent No. 3 and the petitioner shall deliver vacant possession of the disputed house to Respondent No. 3 within two months. The learned XII Addl. District Judge who heard the appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority agreed with all the findings recorded by him and dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioner to deliver possession of the disputed house to Respondent No. 3 within one week.
(2.) IT has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the findings relating to the alleged requirement of Respondent No. 3 recorded by the Prescribed Authority and confirmed by the appellate authority is not correct. The Prescribed Authority has held that the family of Respondent No. 3 consists of himself, his wife and his three sons and three daughters and another son Siyaram and his wife. The three sons of respondent No. 3 namely, Sangam Lal, Hari Krishna and Raj Kumar are aged about 24 years, 21 years and 17 years, respectively, and his three daughters, Km. Krishna about 19 years. Km. Renu about 25 years and Km. Sunita about 9 years. He has further held that the present requirement of Respondent No. 3 is to have six bed -rooms, one for himself and his wife and one for Siyaram and his wife, one each for Sangam Lal, and Hari Krishna, who are of marriageable age and two bed -rooms for Raj Kumar and three daughters. In addition to it, Respondent No. 3 also requires one kitchen room, one store room and one drawing room. According to the Prescribed Authority, the present accommodation in occupation of Respondent No. 3 consists of two bed -rooms, one Verandah, one Chhajja and open terrace in House No. 118/136 and the remaining portion of that house is used by the respondent for carrying on the business of sweetmeat shops and photostat machine shop. On the basis of these facts, the Prescribed Authority has held that Respondent No. 3 requires additional accommodation and his requirement will be satisfied by the accommodation available in the whole of the building occupied by the petitioner. As observed earlier, this finding of the Prescribed Authority has been confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge. In my opinion, they have not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, additional accommodation is bona fide required by Respondent No. 3 for the personal use and occupation of his own and his family members. The next point that has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority have committed error in determining the issue of comparative hardship. The Prescribed Authority has held that the petitioner's daughter, Shila Srivastava, is employed in the Food Corporation of India and Chitra Srivastava, another daughter of the petitioner, is employed in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and thus the financial position of the petitioner is sound and she is in a position to take another house on rent. The petitioner has. not made any effort to find out alternative accommodation for herself and it is not enough that she would be thrown on street, if she has to vacate the disputed accommodation. Thus the Prescribed Authority has concluded that the comparative hardship of the petitioner will not be greater.
(3.) THE appellate authority has held that in the disputed house there is one small room and two small Kothries on the ground floor and one small room and two Kothries on the first floor and thus there are two rooms and four Kothries in all. The additional requirement of the Respondent No. 3 can be satisfied if the two rooms and four Kothries are made available to him. The Respondent No. 3 cannot be compelled to search for alternative accommodation, when he has got a house of his own. On the other hand, the petitioner who is a tenant and has good financial means can very well make alternative arrangement. The appellate authority has accordingly taken the view that the likely hardship which may be caused to the petitioner will be less than the hardship of Respondent No. 3 and hence the issue of comparative hardship should also be decided in his favour. It has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that her daughter, Chitra Srivastava, working in U.P.S.R.T.C. was married in November 1985 and since then she has been living with her husband. She is no more an earning member of the petitioner's family. The only earning member in the petitioner's family is Shila Srivastava, who is employed in the Food Corporation of India. The petitioner's husband died in 1970 and the petitioner has no independent source of income except a mere sum of Rs. 285/ - which she gets as pension. The petitioner's son is also without any job even after completing M. Sc. It is stated that the petitioner is extremely hard pressed both financially and otherwise and has no other accommodation in the city of Lucknow and so if she is thrown out of the disputed house she would have to face inexplicable hardship. It may be true that the family circumstances of the petitioner are very pitiable, but that will not be a sufficient ground for holding that her hardship is greater than that of Respondent No. 3. It has been rightly observed by the learned Prescribed Authority that after all the petitioner is a tenant and it is for her to search for an alternative accommodation. The landlord cannot be deprived of the right of enjoyment of his own house, when it is bona fide required by him. The question of hardship referred in the fourth proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 21 of the abovementioned Act is to be determined on the basis of the physical requirements of the landlord and the tenant and not on the basis of sentiments.;