M.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) WHILE deciding an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the Act) the authorities are required to examine the element of need of the landlord and not just the desire to get the accommodation released. The landlord has to show that he genuinely required the accommodation.
(2.) THE petitioner was a tenant in the ground floor of accommodation No. 27/50 Pathwari, Belanganj, Agra where he has been running an oil Mill. The opposite party No. 3, who is a practising Advocate, is the landlord. He filed an application for release of the accommodation stating that the accommodation, which is in his possession, is not sufficient to meet the requirement. His family consisted of his ownself, his wife (now dead), two major married sons namely Mahendra Bansal and Rajesh Bansal and seven grand- children. The accommodation in his possession consisted of one room, two kothas, one Verandah, one kitchen and a small open space in the first floor of the building. It was wholly insufficient for his requirement. The ground floor was occupied by the petitioner, who was running his oil mill therein. The landlord asserted his need as bonafide.
(3.) THE petitioner filed a written statement denying the bonafide need. It was further stated that the landlord was having an additional accommodation in house No. 6/326 Belanganj, in the same city. In view of the provisions of Section 2(1)(c) and (d) of the Act, Act No. 13 of 1972 became inapplicable. He was running an Oil Mill. In case the release order was passed, greater hardship would be caused to him as his entire business will come to a stand- still. He does not have any other accommodation where he can shift his business. Only four Kothas on the ground floor are in his tenancy. The entire floor of the accommodation is occupied by the landlord.;