S.Saghir Ahmad, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition.
(2.) THE premises in question is owned by opposite party no. 3. A portion of this house is in occupation of the petitioner as a tenant. THE opposite party no. 3 moved an application under section 21 (3) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for the eviction of the petitioner from the said premises and for its release in her favour. It is stated in the application that the petitioner who was posted as a Bank employee at Faizabad has since been transferred to Lucknow. THE opposite party no. 3 further stated that her husband, who was also bank employee, was posted in the Orissa region where there were no facilities for the eduction of children and, therefore, in 1978 the opposite party no. 3 with her children (a son and a daughter) came to Faizabad and got her children admitted in local schools. She first stayed with her father and brother but later shifted to a rented house for which she was paying Rs. 200/- per month as rent although she herself was getting Rs. 150/- every month as rent from the petitioner in respect of the house in dispute. The application was contested by the petitioner who stated that his transfer to Lucknow was only a short term arrangement. The opposite party no. 3 with her family could live with her husband who was now posted at Lucknow but she was deliberately staying at Faizabad in order to seek eviction of the petitioner. In any case, opposite party no. 3 alongwith her children could live with her father, who was also residing at Faizabad in his own house. The Prescribed Authority by his judgment and order dated 17-9-81 allowed the application. The petitioner was directed to vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of the order. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal which was disposed of by the 1st Additional District Judge, Faizabad by his judgment and order dated 26-3-1982. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has now come to this Court.
(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Prescribed Authority while allowing the application did not at all compare the respective hardships of the parties, as was mandatorily required to be done in view of the fourth proviso to section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. This basic mistake was repeated by the appellate court and the provisions contained in Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act were totally ignored by the Prescribed Authority as also by the appellate authority. The findings recorded by these authorities on the question of genuine need of the opposite party no. 3 were also assailed. This is countenanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party by submitting that the appellate authority being conscious of the true legal position, has compared the respective hardships of the parties in the light of the guidelines contained in Rule 16 and as such the impugned judgments were liable to be sustained particularly when both the authorities below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, which is legally unassailable in a writ petition, that the need of the opposite party for the accommodation in question was genuine and bonafide. Let me proceed to examine the merits of the respective contentions.;