S.U. Khan J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No 2 and 3 Sri Dhruv Kumar and Sim Satyawati against him on (he ground of Bonaire need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1972. Release application was registered as Misc. Case No 50 of 1986, Prescribed authority, Shikohabad through judgement and order dated 16.2.1987 rejected the release application. Against the sand judgment and Border, landlord respondent No. 2 and 3 filed Mist Appeal No. 60 of 1987 I! Additional District Judge, Mainpuri judgment and under dated 26.11.1988 allowed the appeal, set-aside integument and order of the prescribed authority and allowed the release application of the landlord hence this writ petition by the tenant.
(2.) Property in dispute is a house rent of which is only Rs. 30/- per month. Prescribed authority found the need of (he landlord not to be noontide on the ground that in Village Asvai landlord had available with him a residential house Landlord had offered that he was ready to let out a pan of the said house to the tenant in case he vacated the house in dispute what in the town of sirsaganj. Tebsil Shikohabad, district Presemned authority held that as the need of (he land/Old was not bonafide hence there was no occasion for the landlord to offer the accommodation to the tenant.
(3.) The appellate court found that landlord Dhruv Kumar was employed in Allahabad bank and was posted at -Shikohabad which was are a short distance from Sirsaganj where the house in dispute is situate and that he was handicapped in the sense that there was a shortening in one of his legs and that it was quite difficult for him to go from village Asvai to Sirsaganj either on cycle or on scooter and then go to Shikohabad. Appellate court also found that mother of Dhruv Kumar i.e. respondent No. 3 was an old lady suffering from several ailments and in connection with her treatment she had to visit regularly town Sirsaganj. In view of these findings appellate court concluded that the need of the landlord was quite bonafide. In respect of comparative hardship appellate court found that tenant also had his own house in the village Gurau, which was at a short distance from Sirsaganj hence he would not suffer much hardship in case of eviction. Appellate court also held that the village of the tenant where his house was situated was m the Sirsaganj, htawah road In any case tenant did not show that what efforts he made to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. This by itself was sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship against the tenant as held by the Supreme Court in B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundadu AIR2003 SC 2713 , JT2003 (1 )SC 438 , 2003 (1 )SCALE147 , (2003 )2 SCC320 , 2003 (1 )UJ726 (SC ).;