- (1.) The petitioner is a tenant of the ground floor of house No. 6, Jai Narain Road, Hussainganj, Lucknow, of which the third respondent, J.N. Kesarwani, is the landlord. The first floor of that house was in the tenancy of the petitioner's father-in-law Sri Bhagwati Prasad. Shri Bhagwati Prasad vacated to accommodation in his tenancy. Thereupon the petitioner applied for its allotment to him and the landlord also applied for its release in his favour on the ground that he needed the house for his personal occupation. It was alleged on behalf of the petitioner that there was a common passage and latrine in the ground floor where he was living and the accommodation which had fallen vacant, and that the accommodation in his tenancy was too small for his growing family. The landlord, on the other hand, contended that previously his family was living in the ancestral house in Bhusa Mandi, which he had sold to raise funds for the marriage of his sister and that since then his family was living in two tenanted houses. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application for release and allotted the accommodation in dispute to the petitioner on the ground that the same would not be sufficient for the landlord's requirement. The landlord then moved the State Government under Section 7-A of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The State Government has allowed the revision petition and has set release the accommodation in favour of the landlord. The petitioner is aggrieved and has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The first ground upon which the order of the State Government has been attacked is that the State Government has failed to consider the petitioner's need and as such the impugned order is void. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in Jagan Nath Prasad Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh,1973 ACN 531. That was case where the landlord wanted to file a suit for the eviction of his tenant under Section 3 of the Act. It was held by this Court that in such a case it was necessary for the landlord to prove that his need was genuine and that his need was greater than that of the tenant. Such is not the situation in the instant case. Here the accommodation in dispute has fallen vacant, so that there is no sitting tenant. As such the question of considering the comparative need of the landlord and tenant does not arise. All that the law requires in such a case is that the landlord must show that he genuinely needs the accommodation for his personal occupation. The landlord cannot get the accommodation released in his favour, if he wants to let it out to a tenant. The selection of a tenant and fixation of reasonable rent is within the jurisdiction of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The State Government has recorded a finding in the instant case that the landlord needs the accommodation for his personal occupation and on that finding the landlord was entitled to resume possession of the accommodation irrespective of the need of a prospective tenant.
(3.) Another ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord has recently built another house which he has let out at a rent of Rs. 140/- per month. That house was not governed by the provisions of the Act and as such it would have been easier for the landlord to get that accommodation vacated for his personal occupation. The landlord, on the other hand, has stated that the tenant has a house of his own which consists of two shops and a residential flat and as such he can easily shift to his own house. Be that as it may, in my opinion, this controversy is not relevant. Even if the landlord does possess another house which has been let out to a tenant he cannot be forced to eject the tenant from that accommodation. Indeed it would be difficult for a landlord to eject a sitting tenant, because there the considerations as laid down by this Court in the case of Jagannath Prasad would immediately arise. But no such consideration arises where a house belonging to him has fallen vacant. He can get that house released in his favour, if he makes out a genuine need for his personal occupation. No other consideration arises in such a case. On the findings recorded by the State Government the genuine need of the landlord cannot be questioned. As such the State Government has committed no error in deciding the matter in favour of the landlord.;