R.M.Sahai. J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the appellate authority dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was found by the Prescribed Authority that the need of the petitioner was genuine and in case his application was rejected he would suffer greater hardships. In appeal both these findings were set-aside. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the finding on bona fide need of the landlord recorded by the appellate authority can not be maintained. While deciding this issue the appellate authority took into consideration the circumstances which were irrelevant and could not furnish material for adjudicating the bona fide or otherwise of the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. He found that the claim of the petitioner that the accommodation was needed for his married daughter and other family members could not be a ground on which the accommodation could be got released. In recording this finding he obviously committed an error apparent on the face of record. May be the petitioner might have mentioned that his married daughter and other family members at times come to reside with him but the release was sought not for the married daughter but on the ground that the petitioner family consisted of 11 persons. Out of these there are five sons, daughters, unmarried grand-children etc. The appellate authority nowhere in his order has examined or considered that the accommodation in which the landlord was residing was sufficient for these 11 persons.
(2.) The other circumstance which weighed with him was that the landlord did not file the application against Teeka Ram who is a tenant residing in the ground floor. He was not impressed with the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the landlord was not bound to move application against all the tenants. He held that application was filed by the petitioner because he did not appear to be happy with the opposite party. May be so, but this is not a circumstance on which the application could have been rejected while deciding bona-fide of the landlord. It was not open to the appellate authority to hold that as the petitioner was not happy with the opposite party, therefore, his need was not genuine. In doing so, the appellate authority again relied on an irrelevant circumstance. He further found that the application filed by the petitioner was based on incorrect facts as he did not disclose Dochhatti in his application. The reply given by the petitioner that as the Dochhatti could not be used for residential purposes, its non-disclosure was not fatal, was not considered sufficient by the appellate authority. It is true that in an application for release the landlord is expected to give details of the accommodation which are in his occupation but on the facts of the case, the non-disclosure of Dochhatti or non-mention of the enclosed verandah which was also being used as a room could not render the application incorrect nor the need of the landlord could not be considered because he did not file a proper application. Similarly, the denial by the landlord that he was not in the habit of purchasing and selling houses was sufficient and his application could not be rejected because the facts were not denied specifically. In any case, even assuming that all these circumstances mentioned by the appellate authority were to be taken against the petitioner the application could not be rejected unless there was specific finding that the need of the landlord was genuine. Unfortunately, the appellate authority did not record any finding. He proceeded to reject the application because of the circumstances mentioned above which could not be dispensed with the necessary requirement of Section 21 which requires the Prescribed Authority or the appellate authority to decide the bona-fide need of the landlord. In the absence of any finding on this aspect of the matter, the order of the appellate authority can not be maintained. As the finding of bona-fide need is vitiated it is not necessary to examine if the findings recorded by him on the hardships can be sustained. In fact, that fails automatically.
(3.) In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the application afresh on merit. The parties shall bear their own costs. The appellate authority is expected to decide the appeal expeditiously. Petition allowed.;