Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, by an order dated 23rd May 1989 of 1st Additional District Judge, and the order dated 20th July, 1984 of the Prescribed Authority in so far it has been decided against the petitioner. The landlady Smt. Lakharji possessed a property consisting of three rooms in Mohalla Purdilpur, which is in occupation of the tenant. The second property owned by her is in Mohalla Mohripur also known as Madho Jaggle Tukre. This property is partly occupied by the tenant and partly by the son of the landlady Surajlal. The third property is at Mohalla Mumaunpur, the ground floor of which is the subject matter of release proceedings. The first floor is occupied by the other tenant. The fourth property of the landlady is a betel shop in Bheriyagarh which consists of a shop in front and some enclosed area behind the shop which is being used for residential purpose by the landlady.
(2.) THE release of the ground floor of the accommodation situate in Mohalla Mumaunpur is sought for the family members consisting of self son, daughter -in -law and grand children. It is being alleged that they are living in a temporary tinned shed construction which has been raised after covering open land behind the shop. The tenant contested the requirement of the landlady on the ground that they have sufficient accommodation at Mohripur where the other son is living which is sufficient to accommodate the family of both the sons as also the landlady.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority held the need of the landlady to be bona fide and genuine but on comparison of the hardships it was held that if part of the accommodation is released in favour of the landlady it would meet the requirements and, as such, partly allowed the release of the disputed building. Against the said order both the landlady and the tenant filed appeals which were number as Appeal No. 259 of 1984 and 275 of 1984 respectively.;