Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. In view of office report dated 25.7.2005 service upon respondent No. 3 tenant is held to be sufficient. No one appears for respondent No. 3.
(2.) THIS is landlords' writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceeding initiated by them against tenant respondent No. 3 on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Rent Regulation Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 113/82. Prescribed Authority/II Addl. Civil Judge, Varanasi dismissed the release application through judgment and order dated 30.1.1985 against which Appeal No. 41/95 was filed. II Addl. District Judge, Varanasi dismissed the appeal on 20.10.1986 hence this writ petition. The Courts below held that landlord was residing in a tenanted house which was sufficient for his need. Occupation of another house by the landlord as tenant is not a valid ground for rejecting his release application. Only such accommodation can be said to be available to the landlord, which is available to him as of right. In this regard reference may be made to the authorities of Supreme Court in G.K. Devi v. Ghan Shyam Das : AIR 2000 SC 656, and Dhanna Lal v. Kalawati Bai : 2002 (48) ALR 678 (SC) : AIR 2002 SC 2572 (para 26). The assertion of the tenant that landlord was not paying rent of the house in which he was tenant even if correct is of no importance. Non payment of rent does not enlarge the interest of tenant in tenanted accommodation. Another ground taken by the Courts below was that landlord had a share in his ancestral house. Having a share in ancestral house is also no ground to reject release application. The tenant himself admitted that initially landlord and his brothers were residing alongwith their families in their ancestral house, however; afterwards they shifted to other houses (para 11 of written statement). This clearly proves that the ancestral house was not sufficient for their needs. Landlord also asserted that his ancestral house was in extremely dilapidated condition. The said house was later on sold by landlord and other co -shares. In view of above facts neither availability of share in the ancestral house nor its sale could adversely affect the bona fide need of the landlord for the building in dispute which he purchased on 14.9.1978.
(3.) IN respect of comparative hardship tenant did not show as to what efforts he made to search alternative accommodation. This was sufficient to decide the comparative hardship against tenant as held by the Supreme Court in B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada : AIR 2003 SC 2713.;