TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is the landlord and has filed this writ petition against the judgment of the appellate Court, whereby the appeal of the tenant was allowed and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside and the release application of the petitioner -landlord was rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the first floor of the premises in question on the ground of bona fide and genuine need of additional accommodation for her family members. The petitioner in her application alleged that she alongwith her husband, two daughters and six sons are living in the premises in question and on account of the growing need of her family members, she requires the additional accommodation in occupation of the tenant. The petitioner contended that the eldest son had got married and has a wife and one child and that they require their own privacy and space. The other sons are also of marriageable age and would also require their own space and privacy. One daughter had not married but keeps visiting the petitioner. In his way, the petitioner contended, that her need was bona fide and genuine and that the accommodation in question should be release in her favour. The petitioner also contended that the tenant was not residing in the premises in question and that he keeps the accommodation in question locked most of the time. The petitioner contended that the tenant was staying with his mother in the ancestral house. In addition to this ancestral house, the tenant's mother has her own house and therefore, the tenant has sufficient accommodation of his own where he can always shift. The petitioner thus contended that the tenant would not suffer any hardship in case he had to vacate the premises in question. On the other hand, the petitioner would suffer greater hardship in case the release application is not allowed. The tenant contested the release application and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and contended that the petitioner was neither the landlord nor the owner. The tenant further submitted that the release application was mala fide and not bona fide and that the petitioner does not require any additional accommodation. The tenant admitted that he had a share in the family house, but submitted that the accommodation was insufficient and therefore, was living in this single room tenanted accommodation. The tenant further denied that he was living with his mother in the family house and further denied that he was keeping the premises in question locked.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority after considering the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusing the affidavits filed by the parties on record, allowed the application of the petitioner and released the accommodation in question. The Prescribed Authority held that the petitioner's need was bona fide and genuine and that the petitioner required the additional accommodation for her family members. On the other hand, the Prescribed Authority found that the tenant was a single person and had a share in the family property and that he could easily shift to another place, since he was a single person and therefore, would not suffer any hardship in comparison to the hardship that could be caused to the landlord in the event the release application was not allowed. Accordingly, the prescribed authority held that the need of the landlord was greater than that of the tenant.;