- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 5-2-1983 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') as well as the order dated 28-1-1984 passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur, under Section 18 of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of Premises No. 111/83, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur. The petitioner was residing in the ground-floor of the premises in question and the first floor consisting of two rooms, kitchen, latrine, bath and a verandah was in the tenancy of Sri I. C. Dave on a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction of the said tenant under Section 20 of the Act, which was decreed on the ground of arrears of rent and the tenant was directed to be evicted. The tenant filed a revision before the High Court, which was also dismissed by the judgment and order dated 14-9-1982 3. After dismissal of the tenant's revision by the High Court, the petitioner intimated the vacancy under Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 9 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' ). Pursuant to the intimation sent by the petitioner an enquiry was made by the Rent Control Inspector and a detailed report was submitted on the basis of which the vacancy was notified. The petitioner also moved an application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act praying that the accommodation in dispute may be released in his favour for his personal use and occupation. The petitioner submitted that he has a family of seven members including himself, his wife, two sons and two unmarried daughters and that one married daughter having been deserted by her husband is living with the petitioner. The petitioner further submitted that the accommodation with the petitioner was insufficient to meet the need of his growing family and therefore, requires additional accommodation for his family members. The petitioner contended that his need for the additional accommodation was bona fide. An affidavit to this extent was also filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 4. It is relevant to state here that despite notifying the vacancy no person filed any application for allotment of the premises in question except the petitioner applied for release of the premises in question. 5. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the petitioner for the release of the premises in question on the ground that the need of the landlord was not bona fide. The Revisional Court also dismissed the revision of the landlord on the ground that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was sufficient to meet the need of his family members. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as the revisional order passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur. 6. Heard Sri S. M. Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application of the petitioner was bona fide and that the accommodation was required to meet the needs of the members of his family. The accommodation, which was in possession of the petitioner, was wholly insufficient. Further, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had passed a cryptic order and had not given any reasons as to why the need of the petitioner was not bona fide. 8. In my view the writ petition is liable to be allowed on the short ground that the impugned orders are cryptic and does not contain the reasons. Merely by saying that the petitioner's need is not bona fide was not sufficient. The authority has to give reasons to support the finding of bona fide need. 9. In the normal case, the matter would have remanded back to the authority to reconsider the application of the landlord. However, more than 20 years have elapsed, remanding the matter again would entail another round of litigation and cause harassment to the petitioner-landlord. In the present case, the petitioner has clearly spelt out his bona fide need for additional accommodation for the members of his family and has also filed an affidavit giving an undertaking that he will only use it for residential purpose and will not let out the accommodation to anyone else. Further, in paragraph-14 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that after the original tenant vacated the premises in question the petitioner's sons and daughters are residing in the disputed accommodation. No counter- affidavit has been filed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer denying this fact. Further, no allotment application was filed by any person for the allotment of the premises after the vacancy was notified and only the petitioner's application for release of the premises was before the authority. 10. In my view, in the absence of any allotment application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer ought to have released the premises in dispute in favour of the landlord. In any case, I find that the need of the petitioner was bona fide. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 5-12-1983 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the revisional order dated 28-1-1984 passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur are hereby set aside and the accommodation in question is released in favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;