- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of release proceeding under Section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13/72 initiated by them on the ground of bona fide need. Accommodation in dispute fell vacant on account of its vacation by outgoing tenant Gajadhar Lal. The case was registered on the file of R. C. and E. O. Bareilly as case No. 20/85 and E. O. on 9-4-1986 after hearing landlords as well as allottee held that the landlords did not require additional accommodation, i. e. the accommodation which was vacated by Gajadhar Lal. While deciding release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act prospective allottee cannot be heard as held by the Supreme Court in R. N. Sharma v. S. Gaur, AIR 2002 SC 2204. From perusal of the order of R. C. and E. O. it is clear that he took into consideration the evidence brought on record by prospective allottee. The need set up was for Rajendra Kumar and Ravindra Kumar petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. In respect of petitioner No. 2 it was stated in para 8 of the release application (copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition) that due to paucity of accommodation he had taken a quarter from his employer on rent of Rs. 90/- which was 8 kilometer away from the house in question. A residential accommodation provided by employer can never be taken into consideration while considering the need of the landlord. The R. C. and E. O. also unnecessary held that the mother of the landlord could reside in two rooms on the ground floor and landlord petitioner No. 1 alongwith his family could reside on the first floor (accommodation in dispute is part of the ground floor ). Old lady requires constant care and it was rather cruel on the part of the R. C. and E. O. to suggest the mother of the petitioner No. 1 should reside on the ground floor and the petitioner No. 1 alongwith his four children should reside on the first floor.
(2.) AGAINST the order of R. C. and E. O. dated 9-4-1986 through which petitioner landlord release application was rejected revision was filed being R. C. Revision No. Nil/86. District Judge, Bareilly on 21-4- 1986 dismissed the revision summarily on the ground that there was no jurisdictional error, hence this writ petition. In my opinion both the Courts below wrongly rejected the release application of the landlord under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. Need under Section 16 (1) (b) is to be construed more liberally than need under Section 21 of the Act as in the former case there is no sitting tenant while in the latter case interest of sitting tenant is involved. Interest of prospective allottee cannot be looked into while deciding release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside and release application of landlords filed before R. C. and E. O. , Bareilly is allowed. Application allowed. .;