S.C.Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS is tenants' petition arising from proceedings for eviction from accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of the UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972) for short, Act. The petitioner has lost before both the authorities below. The dispute in the petition pertains to a portion of Prakash Bhawan, 133/356 situate at Naka Hindola, Police Station Naka Hindola, Lucknow. The landlord -opposite party's case was that he required the tenement in question for the occupation of his two sons who were to stay at Lucknow in connection with their education. One of the sons had completed his M.B.B.S. Education at King Georges Medical College, Lucknow, and was undergoing internship at the time of moving the application. Marriage of this son had been settled with a girl who had also passed M.B.B.S. Examination from the same College and the marriage was going to be solemnized in October 1985. The application under Section 21 was filed in August 1985. It was pointed out that earlier the son was residing in hostel but having completed his M.B.B.S. Examination he had to find out an accommodation for himself especially after marriage. Regarding the other son it was pleaded that he had passed Junior High School Examination from Puranpur, District Pilibhit and he had to come to Lucknow for higher education. The landlord belonged to Puranpur, District Pilibhit, where he himself was a Medical Practitioner.
(2.) AFTER setting up the above bona fide, genuine and pressing need it was pointed out on behalf of the landlord, that the tenant -petitioners owned House No. 281/32 at Mawaiyya, Lucknow, and a portion thereof was in their possession and the other portion was let out. On this basis it was sought to be pointed out that the petitioners will not suffer any hardship or inconvenience if they were required to vacate the accommodation in question. The petitioners denied the need set up by the landlords but did not deny the fact that they owned house at Mawaiyya. Of course it was pleaded that in the said House only one room was in occupation and rest of the rooms were in occupation of tenants.
(3.) IN support of their respective pleas both the parties filed affidavit evidence. On a consideration of the said evidence the prescribed authority upheld the landlord's plea of genuine need and also held that on a comparison of hardships the landlords will suffer greater hardship than the petitioners. In view of the fact that the petitioner had a house of their own while the landlords did not have any house at Lucknow. With these material findings the prescribed authority allowed the application under Section 21 and directed petitioners' eviction from the accommodation in question.;