- (1.) This is a tenant's writ petition directed against an order of eviction passed against him in respect of a residential house under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 by the Prescribed Authority which has been confirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge. Both the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority have held that the need of the landlord for the personal occupation of the accommodation was bonafide and further that on a comparison of likely hardship to the parties, the case of the landlord is better. The petitioner has challenged both the findings on a number of grounds. It has been contended that the landlord had been letting out other accommodation to tenants even shortly before the filing of his application under Section 21 and also during the pendency of the writ petition itself.
(2.) The case was heard on more than one day of hearing and even after arguments were commenced, supplementary affidavits were filed by the parties with the permission of the Court.
(3.) The accommodation in the occupation of the petitioner consists of two living rooms besides a verandah, a kitchen, bath and W.C. The landlord contended that he was in occupation of only two rooms and verandah, a kitchen, a latrine and a bathroom. The contention of the petitioner, on the other hand, was that the landlord was in actual occupation of three rooms, one verandah, a store, a kitchen and latrine-cum-bathroom, vide Para 17 of the written statement, Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife Smt. Prandi, his two married sons and their wives, two unmarried daughters, aged 20 and 15 respectively, and two minor grand-children. The petitioner's family consists of himself and his mother. His father who was the original tenant has died during the pendency of the proceedings. Thus, even the facts as admitted by the petitioner are eloquent enough to justify the two findings of the authorities below, namely, that the need of the landlord is genuine and that on a comparison of hardship also the landlord's case is better. Even if we accept that there are 3 rooms in the landlord's house, the accommodation in his possession is grossly inadequate inasmuch as three married couples and two unmarried and grown daughters, besides two minor grand-children are to be accommodated.;