Girish Prasad Mathur, J. - (1.) PARTIES have exchanged affidavit and, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the landlord -respondent No. 3 for release of the 1st floor of house bearing No. 122/482 Sindhi Colony, Kanpur, which is in occupation of the petitioner. The application was allowed and the premises were released in favour of the landlord by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 16 -1 -1985. The appeal filed by the tenant was allowed and the case was remanded for fresh decision after obtaining a report of a Commission regarding area and extent of the accommodation. The Prescribed Authority reconsidered the matter and again allowed the release application by order dated 29 -8 -1988. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Xth Addl. District Judge on 24 -4 -1991. Aggrieved the tenant -petitioner has approached this court for quashing of the release order.
(2.) THE case of the landlord -respondent No. 3 was that he was residing in the ground floor of the same building and he had only three rooms besides kitchen, latrine and bathroom in his occupation. He was carrying business of manufacturing Surkhi' in the name and style of Guru Nanak Surkhi Mill. His family consisted of himself, his wife, son Kamlesh Kumar and his wife, another son Rajendra and his wife, two unmarried daughters Raj Kumari and Ranu, and a grand -son. Besides them he had five other daughters who were married. Kamlesh Kumar was carrying on independent business as a partner of Mohan Surkhi Mil! and Rajendra owned a truck and was engaged in transport business. According to the landlord the accommodation in his possession was wholly insufficient as three separate bed -rooms were required for himself and his two married sons. That apart he required one room as a study -cum -bed room for unmarried daughters, a pooja room as he was a religious person; a store room. a guest room and a drawing room. Some accommodation was required for his married daughters as well who frequently visited their parental home along with their family members. The tenant had three rooms besides kitchen, latrine and bath room in his occupation and he was carrying on soap manufacturing business from which he had substantial income and he could easily afford to take another accommodation on rent. The Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority held that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine They further held that the landlord will suffer greater hardship in the event of the refusal of the release application. On these finding the premises were ordered to be released in favour of the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the finding regarding bona fide need of the landlord. The material on record fully establishes that two sons of the landlord are married and they are living along with him. It has also come on record that his both sons are carrying independent business and the landlord's family appears to be one having some status in society. The need of separate bed rooms for the landlord and his two married sons, therefore, appears to be absolutely bona fide and genuine. There can be no doubt that the married daughters, of the landlord too must be visiting their parental home with their own family members. It is asserted on behalf of Respondent No. 3 that sometimes even the relations of the husbands of the married daughters also visit Kanpur and stay with him. This can also be accepted as true, Kanpur is a big Industrial town people do visit big towns for their own work and stay with their relations. Therefore, the need of one guest room appears to be genuine, since the landlord and his sons are all persons having status the need of a drawing room for receiving the guest also appears to be genuine.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal one daughter of the landlord was married and another daughter has been married during the pendency of the writ petition and, therefore, the need of a separate room for them as a study -cum -bedroom has disappeared. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that at the time when the release application was filed the landlord hid only one grand son but now he has five grand -children. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. In view of the fact that now there are five grand -children it is obvious that they also need a room to themselves as a study -cum -bed room. Looking to overall facts and circumstances of the case. I am fully satisfied that the need of the landlord is bona fide and there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the authorities below on this question.;