S.C.VERMA, J. - (1.) THE present petition is directed against the order of Ist Additional District Judge, Dehradun, dated 1.8.1988 whereby the release application of the landlord under Section 21(I)(a) of the Act in respect of premises No. 52, Maliyan Mohalla, Dehradun, consisting of two rooms in the ground floor, has been rejected.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority allowed the release application and found that the need of the landlord is genuine and bonafide and on comparison of hardship the landlord would be put to greater hardship. The tenant has acquired an accommodation at Patelnagar and the alternative accommodation is available to them. The disputed accommodation in possession of the tenant consists of two rooms each measuring 8' x 10', one kitchen, store, bath room, latrine and common courtyard etc. The accommodation of the landlord in the same house comprised of two rooms each measuring 8' x 10', one verandah on ground floor, two rooms measuring 9' x 11' and 20' x 10', one small kitchen, both room, latrine, open space and courtyard on the first floor. The family of the landlord consists of sixteen members. It is established that the accommodation on the first floor consisting of one room measuring 20' x 10', is in occupation of Saroj Kumar and his wife and one more room is needed for three children. The two married sons namely Sri Anil Kumar and Mukesh Kumar with the family of Anil Kumar consisting of three members and with the family of Mukesh Kumar consisting of two members, needed two separate rooms. The requirement for the son Raj Kumar, who is of marriageable age, widowed mother Smt. Sharbati Devi and daughter Alka Gupta, cannot be met by the present accommodation available with the landlord.
(3.) THE appellate Court held that the total five rooms are needed for living of the above strength of the family of the landlord. In my opinion, considering the accommodation available with the landlord, the number of family members their present need of accommodation as also their growing need, which should also be relevant consideration, in considering the bonafide need, the accommodation at their disposal is wholly insufficient. The learned Judge has committed manifest error in holding that five rooms would be sufficient to accommodate the entire family. There are nine adult members whose occupation cannot be denied along with four children. In my opinion the finding, in these circumstances, by the learned Judge, that the landlord does not require any additional accommodation, cannot be sustained. The finding of the Learned Judge that the need of the landlord is not bonafide and genuine, is not borne at from the material on record and is manifestly erroneous.;