Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the prescribed Authority dated 3 -2 -1989 and the order of the Additional District Judge dated 17 -8 -1991. The petitioner is a tenant of the premises No. 83/345 Banant Nagar, Kanpur, Smt. Manjeet Kaur and Smt. Gurcharan Kaur purchased this house by a registered sale -deed dated 20 -11 -1982. They filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 on the allegations that Smt. Manjeet Kaur -applicant No. 1 required the accommodation because she was living as a tenant in house No. 110/70 Bamba Road Kanpur but on account of pressing demand, the present accommodation was purchased by them. It was stated that their family was large, Smt. Gurcharn Kaur -applicant No. 2 stated that her husband was employed at Jabalpur and posted there but ultimately he may live in the accommodation in question. The petitioner contested the said case and it was denied that there was any bona fide need of the landlord of the accommodation in question and he would suffer hardship if evicted.
(2.) THE prescribed Authority after taking into consideration the need of the landlord and considering comparative hardship, allowed the application by order dated 8 -2 -1989. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge and the Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal by order dated 17 -8 -1991. The counsel for the petitioner has urged two points the first contention is that the prescribed Authority did not pass any order as required under Order 19, Rule 1, C.P.C. permitting the parties to file affidavits as evidence in the case and therefore the prescribed Authority acted illegally in relying upon the affidavit filed in support of the case by the landlord. It may be stated that the petitioner did not raise this objection before the prescribed Authority and he himself filed affidavits. In these circumstances, he cannot be permitted to raise this objection as laid down in M/s. Usha International Ltd., Agra and others v. IVth Additional District Judge, Bareilly and others, : 1991 (18) ALR 389.
(3.) THE next submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that neither the prescribed Authority nor the Appellate Authority considered the facts as required under Rule 16(d) of the Rule framed under U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It was urged that the Appellate Authority should have considered as to whether the part of the Building under his tenancy would be sufficient for the need of the landlord. The petitioner has not raised this point in the writ petition itself and there is no averments to this effect in the writ petition itself. He has not placed any material to show that a part of the accommodation would satisfy the need of the landlord. The prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority both have considered in detail about the need of the landlord and have found that the accommodation in question is required for the family of the landlord. The Prescribed Authority has recorded the finding that the entire accommodation in occupation of the respondent consists of two rooms, bath -room, kitchen etc. He took into the consideration the large family of the landlord, on these fact, it cannot be said that a part of the accommodation would suffice the need of the landlord.;