Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) LANDLORDS -respondents 3 and 4 Shrimati Saraswati Devi and Brijesh Kumar Gupta, who are mother and son, filed release application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against tenant -petitioner, which was registered a P.A. Case No. 1 of 1988 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Munsif Shahjahanpur. Property in dispute is residential house. In the release application it was stated that husband of respondent No. 3 and father of respondent No. 4 Ram Mohan Gupta was the owner landlord of the house in dispute, who died in the year 1976 and at that time the age of respondent No. 4 was only 5 years, that respondent No. 3 after the death of her husband shifted to the house of her mother along with her son respondent No. 4, who was at that time aged 5 years and let out the accommodation in dispute to the petitioner, which is situated on the ground floor. It was further stated that in one room on the first floor respondent No. 3 kept her goods and locked the room. Tenant pleaded that respondents No. 3 and 4 were comfortably residing at the house of mother of respondent No. 3, hence their need was not bona fide.
(2.) PRESCRIBED Authority accepted the case of the landlords and allowed the release application on 28.5.1992. Against the said judgment and order tenant -petitioner filed P.A. (Rent Control) Appeal No. 39 of 1992, 1st A.D.J. Shahjahanpur through judgment and order dated 21.12.1993 dismissed the appeal, hence this writ petition. There was some controversy in respect of occupation of the tenant of first floor accommodation. Landlords pleaded that even though first floor was not let out to the tenant, however, tenant forcibly occupied the same, but the landlords thereafter treated him to be the tenant of first floor also in order to avoid any controversy. The tenant pleaded that he was the tenant of the entire accommodation. As the landlords also admitted that they treated him to be the tenant of entire accommodation, hence the said controversy was meaningless.
(3.) IN respect of comparative hardship also both the Courts below held that tenant did not make any serious effort to search alternative accommodation and he did not file any allotment application for allotment of any other house for which specific provision has been made under Rule 10(3) of the Rules framed under the Act.;