A.N.VARMA, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against an order passed by the learned XIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur allowing the appeal as well as the application filed by the respondent-landlords under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) THE application was filed by the said respondent on the assertions that he bonafide required the disputed accommodation for meeting the additional needs of the members of his family who were residing in a portion of the same building. The family of the landlords consisted of himself, his wife, 22 year old widowed daughter and her son, three sons aged 42, 23 and 19 years and one unmarried grand daughter. The accommodation as present available with the landlord was grossly inadequate for the needs of the members of his family. the members of the family had grown in year and the adult members needed some privacy that was not possible under the existing circumstances. The tenant on the other hand would not suffer if the application is allowed. The portion which was in occupation of the tenant was best suited to the needs of the landlords.two elder sons of the landlords were shortly going to get married requiring separate accommodation by their respective families. The application was contested by the petitioner. We asserted that he has only one room, a verandah, a courtyard and a bath room at his disposal in the disputed accommodation. He has no other place where he might shift. The need of the landlord was not genuine at all. He has much larger accommodation than he needs. The family of landlord does not observe purdah. A portion of the house which fell vacant in the year 1974-75 but instead of occupying it himself, the landlord rented it out to one Mohd. Ahmed on a rental of Rs. 45 per month.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority held that the need of the landlord was not genuine and on the point of comparison of respective hardship likely to be caused to the two parties, the tenant had a better claim. The landlord was likely to suffer lesser hardship than the tenant. Aggrieved, by the aforesaid order, the landlord filed an application stating that the tenant had acquired in the year 1979 a plot in the name of his son and that a house had also been constructed thereon. In the view, the tenant already had come to acquire an alternative accommodation and in any case in view of the Explanation (i) to Section 21(1), the tenant had lost the right to contest the application of the landlord.;