M. Wahajuddin, J. - (1.) THE landlord applied for eviction of the tenant under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 urging his personal needs. THE Prescribed Authority found the needs of the landlord genuine, but further held that his purpose would 1 e served if the first floor and the second floor is given to the landlord, while the ground floor is left with the tenant.
(2.) AS regards the release of first floor and second floor an appeal directed against such order was dismissed and the tenant then preferred a writ petition which was also dismissed by this Court. I have referred these facts simply to lay down hat the finding that the landlord's need is genuine has become final ana conclusive. The only matter in dispute, therefore, would be whether his needs will be satisfied by giving him the first an d second floor or that he should have been allowed to evict the tenant from the ground floor as well. As regards the Prescribed Authority's order that the ground floor should remain with the tenant, there was an appeal and initially that appeal was also dismissed ; but the matter came in writ petition before Hon'ble R. M. Sahai, J. who remanded the matter observing that the appellate court should consider the report of the Commissioner, which is already on record, as to then decide the matter. The matter again went before the appellate court and the appellate court after considering the Commissioner's report, as directed by this Court, allowed the appeal and granted landlord's prayer concerning the ground floor as well. The tenant feeling aggrieved has preferred this writ petition against such order. I may at this stage also observe that so far as the ground floor is concerned the matter was not in the other writ petition before Hon'ble N. D. OJha, J. when His Lordship disposed of the writ petition concerning the first and second floor. In fact, the appeal was not even decided by that time. As I am now concerned only with the ground floor, it will be needless to refer to the judgment in the writ petition decided by Hon'ble N. D. Ojha, J. which related to only first and second floor. However, that judgment is still relevant from one angle, namely, that finding that the landlord has a genuine need for the accommodation is final and the only matter which remained for consideration was whether landlord's need will be satisfied by the first and second floor or the ground floor should also be given to the landlord.
(3.) WHILE opposing the writ petition at the stage of admission, it is being urged on behalf of the landlord that actually there is an admission of the tenant himself as per affidavit preferred by him in the court below laying down that the accommodation can be utilized only by one person and the occupation of the accommodation by two families would neither be possible nor practical. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner here that this affidavit was given in the background and context that the tenant should have the entire accommodation and the court has to make a margin and allowance for the same while considering such admission. I would not decide the matter simply on that admission while of course it may be one relevant piece of evidence by way of admission on record. I may now refer to the report of the commissioner. The position that has transpired is that it would be found that in the ground floor there are two rooms, though smaller in size in comparison to the size of the room in the first floor, and there is a latrine ana courtyard and the stair is in the courtyard. On the first floor there is one big room with balcony projection and there is one small room described as kitchen. If it is taken a small residential or store room, then there will be no kitchen. Actually, it can serve as kitchen. On the second floor there is no room or such bounded structure except a shea and there is open roof. The appellate court has come to the conclusion that the existing accommodation on the first floor and the roof and shed on the second floor would not suffice for the landlord and for his genuine needs the ground floor is a must for him. This is what has been observed by the appellate court as a fact.;