- (1.) Heard Sri M. A. Siddiqui, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Manish Tandon, Advocate, appearing for respondents 3 and 4 who are landlords of accommodation in question namely House No. 99/11, Beconganj, Kanpur, Kanpur.
(2.) Respondent-landlords filed application i. e. Rent Case No. 60 of 1995 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") seeking release of premises in question on the ground of personal need. The same was allowed by Prescribed Authority by order dated 27.5.1996 and the Rent Appeal of petitioner has been rejected by appellate Authority i. e. 16th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar vide judgment dated 28.2.1998. Both these orders have been assailed in this writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondent-landlords had alternative sufficient accommodation with them and, therefore, the Courts below have committed patent error in considering comparative hardship of landlord to be more pressed qua petitioner. This finding is illegal. It is said that respondent-landlords were already residing in House No. 97/255, Talaq Mohal, Kanpur and, therefore, they had an accommodation available for residence though petitioner has no other accommodation.;