S.C.MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition arising form proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972), for short, Act. The petitioner has lost before the Prescribed Authority as well as before the Appellate Court. The dispute in the petition pertains to portion of house No. 69 situate within the municipal limits of district Sitapur.
(2.) THE landlord-opposite party sought release of the accommodation in question on the following allegations :- "The accommodation in question was allotted to the father of the tenant petitioners on 23rd May, 1951. He died and the petitioner succeeded to his tenancy rights. At the time the petitioner's father was inducted into the accommodation in question, the opposite party's family comprised himself, his wife, one son and two daughters. At that time all the children were minor. By the year 1988, when the application was moved, the family grew in size and came to comprise - (1) landlord himself (2) his wife, (3) his six grown up sons, the eldest being 24 years old and the youngest 21 years old, (4) three daughters-in-law and (5) five grand children making the total of 16. The daughter had been married. When the married and the unmarried sons and daughter and their families come to stay with the landlord he experiences difficulty in accommodating them all. the accommodation available with him comprises three rooms, one office room, kitchen, bath room, latrine and two store rooms. He was retired Principal of an Intermediate College and he intended to start coaching classes in order to augment his income which has dwindled on account of his retirement. The accommodation in question was, thus, required for accommodation the family members and for running coaching classes. The accommodation occupied by the tenant-petitioners was adjacent to the accommodation occupied by the landlord and only a lane intervened between the two accommodations. The accommodation in the tenancy of the petitioner comprised six rooms, one kothri, one store-room, tin shed, latrine and bath room. The family of the petitioner was small and he could take on rent a house available in the Avas Vikas Colony or in any other locality." The petitioner denied the need of the landlord-opposite party, but he did not deny the size of the landlord's family. He however, stated that the accommodation at the disposal of the landlord-opposite party was sufficient for his requirements and it comprised not three rooms and one office room as alleged, but comprised eight rooms. Five rooms were said to be in the southern portion of the landlord's house. Regarding his sons, it was stated that except the youngest son, the remaining sons resided outside Sitapur in connection with their employment. The need to run coaching classes was denied with the allegation that the landlord had sufficient income of his own and his sons were all employed. It was also asserted that the release of the accommodation in question, which was residential accommodation, couuld not be sought for commercial activity like running coaching classes. The petitioner asserted that he had no accommodation of his own at Sitapur where he might shift to and on this basis it was claimed that his need for the accommodation in question was greater than of the landlord.
(3.) IN support of their respective cases, the parties filed affidavits and documentary evidence. On an appraisement of the said evidence, the Prescribed Authority come to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was genuine and bonafide and the landlord would suffer greater hardship if the application was rejected than the petitioner would suffer if the application was allowed. These findings have been confirmed in appeal by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Sitapur.;