Hari Nath Tilhari, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th February 1994 passed by Shri S.N. Shukla, VIth Additional District Judge, Luck -now, in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 1990, Begam Manzoor Hasan & others v. Dr. Akhil Mehrotra & others and Rend Appeal No. 6 of 1990, Dr. Akhil Mehrotra & others v. Begum Manzoor Hasan and others, whereby the Additional District Judge has been pleased to dismiss Rent Appeal No. 4 of 90 on one hand and on the other hand to allow Rent Appeal No. 6 of 90, of the landlords and to modify and mend the order dated 12.12.89 allowing the application for release moved under section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 which had been moved by opposite -parties 3 and 4 i.e. the landlords for release of the accommodation in dispute and releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord -opposite parties. The appellate court had granted 30 days time to the petitioners to hand over the vacant possession of the accommodation in dispute to the landlords i.e. opposite -parties 3 and 4 and he directed that in case of failure to vacate and handover vacant possession within this period of 30 day it will be open to the landlords -opposite parties to take execution of that order and possession thereof. Landlord -opposite parties moved application for release of Flat No. 77, Halwasiya Market, Lucknow, in their favour, which has been in occupation of the present petitioners on a monthly rental of Rs. 91.87. According to opposite -parties 3 and 4 the landlords' father Dr. P.N. Mehrotra had been residing in a rented house at Havloc Road and since after the death of Dr. P.N. Mehrotra the applicant opposite -parties and their widowed mother i.e. sons and widow of Dr. P.N. Mehrotra used to reside in that rented house and the family consisted of nine members. According to the landlords -applicants the accommodation in the rented house in which the landlord -applicants had been residing there was one drawing room, three small rooms, one verandah, kitchen, bath room and two latrines and a store -room, According to the landlords, the two doctor brothers i.e. opposite -parties 3 and 4 had been married persons having their children and their mother as well as their two brothers residing with them and according to them the accommodation which was in their occupation at Havloc Road on lease had been insufficient to suffice the requirements of the family of the two doctors. The details were mentioned to indicate why the accommodation in which they were residing as tenants was insufficient to suffice the requirements. It was also mentioned in the application that there used to be tense relations and bickering amongst the wives of the opposite parties and the mother -in -law in the family. Looking to the circumstances and the difficulties of the family on account of paucity of the accommodation in that rented accommodation, the applicants had applied for release of their accommodation, namely, Flat No. 77, Halwasiya Market, Lucknow. Notice was given to the tenants i.e. the present petitioner, of the release application. The present petitioners filed their reply i.e. written statement denying the claim of the landlords. The present petitioners in their written statement before the Prescribed Authority submitted that there was no bonafide and pressing need of the landlords for the accommodation in dispute. It was further asserted in the written statement that originally Mohd. Manzoor Hasan deceased was a tenant of the accommodation and he was occupying the present accommodation in dispute along with his wife, son, daughter -in -law, a daughter and grand -daughter. The tenant further stated in the written statement that he has no alternative accommodation and in case the release application is allowed the tenants will be thrown on the street. It was also submitted in reply to the release application by the present petitioners that Mohd. Zaheeruddin, the only son of Manzoor Hasan was working as Translator in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and he has not got any government accommodation with him for residence. It was further submitted in the written statement that accommodation in nearby colonies at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. were at high rate which was beyond the financial limits and capacity of tenant -petitioners to pay rent and in such circumstances it was submitted in the written statement that tenants will suffer greater hardship on the release application being allowed as the tenant will be thrown on the street. On behalf of the parties, affidavits, counter -affidavits and documents were filed. After consideration of the material on record the Prescribed Authority (Rent Control) recorded the following findings: - - The Prescribed Authority further observed in his order at inner page 6, i.e. page 48 of the paper book as under: - -
(2.) A perusal of these observations will show that the Prescribed Authority had taken the view that because of economic factor the tenant, the present petitioners may not be able to get the accommodation in the colony nearby Hindustan Aeronautics as the rental is high and there had been responsibility on the tenant to marry his sister as well, therefore, the difficulty of the tenant will be greater A. page 50 of the judgment the learned Prescribed Authority has again recorded the findings as under: - - Thereafter the Prescribed Authority based its findings on the ground that the house in the nearby colony at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. are on high rental so he directed that the landlord -opposite parties should make an accommodation available to the tenant - -present petitioners then and then only the release application may be granted and did grant the release subject to the condition that the landlords -opposite parties gets an arrangements made of alternative accommodation for the tenants. The Prescribed Authority in the order observed as under: - -
(3.) THEREBY the Prescribed Authority directed that landlords should make their efforts to get accommodation allotted to the tenants in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. colony and should do the needful in the matter whatever is necessary. Subject to this condition the Prescribed Authority i.e. III Addl. Civil Judge, Lucknow allowed the release application, partly. Feeling aggrieved horn that judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority both i.e. tenant petitioners as well as landlord -opposite parties 3 and 4 filed the two appeals i.e. Rent Appeal No. 4 of 1990 and Rent Appeal No. 6 of 1990 respectively. The VI Additional District Judge, Lucknow exercising the powers of the appellate court upheld the findings of the Prescribed Authority as regards the question of bonafide and pressing need of the landlords The learned Additional District Judge further took the view that there is nothing on record to show with reference to the comparative hardship and that it has not been shown that there is greater pressing need of the tenant -petitioner than that of the landlord opp. parties. It means that there is no greater hardship likely to be caused to the tenant petitioners by grant of release application. He observed as under: - - - ;