Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant -respondents 2 to 7 on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of Miscellaneous Case No. 43 of 1982. Prescribed Authority/Munsif Magistrate, Court No. 4, Jhansi allowed the release application on 21.11.1983. Against the said judgment and order tenant -respondent filed R.C. Appeal No. 56 of 1983. The said appeal was allowed by IInd Additional District Judge, Jhansi through judgment and order dated 22.3.1985. Through this writ petition landlord has challenged the said order of the Appellate Court.
(2.) PREMISES in dispute is a house. Landlord pleaded and proved that he was residing in a tenanted house and that tenant had constructed his own house. These facts were admitted by the tenant. In view of this, the prescribed authority decided the question of bona fide need as well as comparative hardship in favour of the landlord. Appellate Court agreed with the Prescribed Authority and held that need of the landlord was bona fide. However, appeal was allowed only on the ground of comparative hardship. According to the Appellate Court there were 13 members in the family of the tenant, hence he would suffer greater hardship in case of eviction. As far as the question of bona fide need is concerned, both the Courts below rightly decided that landlord had proved his bona fide need. If landlord is residing in a tenanted house then his need is certainly bona fide to get released his own house vide G.K. Devi v. Ghanshyam Das : AIR 2000 SC 656.
(3.) SO far as the comparative hardship is concerned, by virtue of Explanation (1) of section 21(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 where the tenant has built or acquired another house in the same city, no objection by the tenant against an application under section 21(1) shall be entertained. By virtue of the said Explanation hardship of the tenant was not to be considered. In any case, even if it is to be considered, ownership and possession of a house by the tenant was sufficient to decide the said question against him. Further, tenant did not bring on record that what efforts he made to search other alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. In view of the Supreme Court authority in the case of B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mumdata : AIR 2003 SC 2713, this itself was sufficient to decide the question of comparative hardship against the tenant.;