Saiyed Saghir Ahmed, J. - (1.) OPPOSITE parties 1 and 2 who were the owners of the accommodation in question, filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for the eviction of the petitioners from that accommodation on the ground that it was bona fide required by them for their own occupation. This application was contested by the petitioners but the Prescribed Authority, by his judgment and order dated 24 -10 -1977 contained in Annexure 6, allowed the application and released the accommodation in favour of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge, which was ultimately transferred to the court of IVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, an application dated 11 -1 -1979 was filed by the petitioners by which it was brought to the notice of the appellate court that opposite parties 1 and 2 had already constructed three rooms in the courtyard (Aangan) and, therefore, there was need, if any, stood satisfied. This application was opposed by opposite parties 1 and 2 who filed their reply on 26 -2 -1979 in which they pleaded that there was an oral partition between them under which the eastern portion of the building in question had fallen to the share of opposite party No. 1 while the western portion had gone to opposite party No. 2. It was thereafter that the need of Ram Kishore, who is opposite party No. 1, alone was considered. The appellate court found that his need was genuine and bona fide and dismissed the appeal by the judgment and order dated 10.3.1979 contained in Annexure 2. The petitioners have now come to this court, in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition has been opposed and a counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder -affidavit. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge would show that he was influenced by offer of one room which was made by the opposite party No. 1 to the petitioners. The lower appellate court has observed as follows: Further the landlord has offered to give one room in the house of his father -in -law i.e. in house No. 567/170 K. This house also practically belongs to the wife of applicant No. 1 and, therefore, he can easily provide alternative accommodation to the tenants in that house. In view of this offer, for an alternative accommodation by Ram Kishore to the tenants, his need is to be considered sympathetically. Thus, considering the comparative need of the parties and likely hardship. I am of the view that the need of the landlord Sri Ram Kishore for the premises in question is much greater and is also genuine and bona fide. Further, as Ram Kishore is also offering alternative room to the tenants in the house No. 567/170 K, the need of the landlord is to be accepted to be genuine and greater. Thus, I am also of the view that the tenants appellants be evicted from the premises in question and it be released in favour of the landlords. Therefore, I see no force in this appeal and it fails. Under Rule 16 of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the claim of the landlord for release of a building is to be construed liberally if he offers an alternative accommodation to the tenant, Clause (f) of Rule 16 which contains the relevant provision lays down as under: Where the landlord offers to the tenant alternative accommodation reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family the landlord's claim for release of the building under tenancy shall be construed liberally.
(3.) THE alternative accommodation which is offered by the landlord to the tenant must be reasonably suitable to the need of the tenant and his family. It is then alone that the landlord's claim can be construed liberally. It is not that a mere offer of an alternative accommodation is sufficient for the need of the landlord to be construed liberally. The accommodation which is offered to the tenant must be reasonably suitable to his needs and to the need of his family. If this essential requirement is wanting, the offer cannot be considered to be an offer as contemplated by Rule 16(f) of the Rules.;