S. U. Khan, J - (1.) -This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by landlords respondents 3 to 7, on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application was registered as U.P.U.B. Case No. 43 of 1979 on the file of Prescribed Authority/1st Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh. In the release application, the five landlords stated that initially Ganga Sahai, their predecessor-in-interest was the owner-landlord of the house in dispute which was let out by him to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 30. It was also stated that Smt. Krishna Devi, respondent No. 3 had been turned out of her husband's house on the ground that no issue was born to her and she was residing at Aligarh alongwith her mother, respondent No. 4 in a tenanted house @ Rs. 25 per month which consisted of only a small room with common latrine, bath room, etc. which were shared by other tenants of adjoining rooms also. It was also stated that the other landlords, i.e., sons of Late Ganga Sahai were residing at Bhopal. The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application on 24.7.1980 against which landlords respondents filed U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 41 of 1980, which was allowed by 1st Additional District Judge, Aligarh on 16.7.1981. The said judgment of the appellate court is challenged in this writ petition by the tenant.
(2.) THE prescribed authority held that the kothari in which the landlord-respondents 3 and 4, i.e., mother and daughter were residing was owned by Ram Charan Lal, who was their near relation, hence he had given the said kothari to the said ladies as licensees without any rent. THE prescribed authority held that firstly the two ladies were residing comfortably as licensee in a kothari at Aligarh and secondly, they could very well go to Bhopal to reside with respondents 5 to 7 who were sons of Mahadevi respondent No. 4 and brothers of respondent No. 3 hence their need was not bona fide. THE least, which can be said about this approach, is that it was cruel, sadistic and terrible. A lady who has been turned out by her husband is seeking release of her property for her residence and still the Prescribed Authority holds the need not to be bona fide. In the circumstances of the case, the need was not only bona fide but was pressing and urgent. Residing as a licensee or tenant is no ground to reject release application on the ground of bona fide need. In this regard reference may be made to G. K. Devi v. Ghanshyam, AIR 2000 SC 656 and N. E. Kshirsagar v. M/s. Traders and Agencies, AIR 1997 SC 59. THE appellate court, therefore, rightly held that bona fide need had been proved. In respect of comparative hardship the appellate court held that the landladies desperately needed the house in dispute, they were residing in miserable condition while tenant was having sufficient means hence he could arrange alternative accommodation. Apart from it, tenant did not show as to what effort he made to search alternative accommodation after filing of release application. This by itself was sufficient to decide the question of comparative hardship against him as held by the Supreme Court in B. C. Bhutada v. G. R. Mundada, AIR 2003 SC 2713. I, therefore do not find any error much less error of law apparent on the face of the record in the judgment and order passed by the appellate court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary-affidavit. In the supplementary-affidavit it has been stated that respondent No. 6 Surendra Singh has filed a suit for eviction against the tenant-petitioner as well as a release application under Section 21 of the Act against the petitioner claiming to be sole landlord. Number of the suit is S.C.C. Suit No. 55 of 2001 which is pending before J.S.C.C., Aligarh. Number of release application is U.P.U.B. Case No. 35 of 2004 which is pending before Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Aligarh. In the supplementary-affidavit it has also been stated that in S.C.C. Suit No. 55 of 2001 written statement was filed by the petitioner in which it was also stated that earlier release application was filed against him by Surendra Singh and four other persons who were his mother, brother and sister. In the suit Surendra Singh filed an affidavit re-asserting his sole landlordship and denying the landlordship of respondents 3, 4, 5 and 7. In the said affidavit filed in S.C.C. Suit No. 55 of 2001 Surendra Singh pleaded his ignorance about the earlier release application or appeal or this writ petition. He stated that he had not filed the earlier release application or the appeal. In view of this subsequent development it has been argued by learned counsel for tenant-petitioner that the present writ petition arising out of release proceedings initiated by respondents 3 to 7 is liable to be dismissed. I do not agree with this contention. Inspite of specific knowledge of pendency of this writ petition through written statement of the petitioner filed in S.C.C. Suit No. 55 of 2001. Surendra Singh respondent No. 6 in this writ petition has not filed any application in this writ petition. In the proceedings giving rise to the instant writ petition tenant-petitioner nowhere questioned the joint landlordship of respondents 3 to 7. He cannot therefore assert now that it is only Surendra Singh who is his landlord and property in dispute cannot be released for the need of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Petitioner being tenant has got no say in the inter se dispute among the landlords. Petitioner is required to deliver possession to respondents 3 and 4. After delivery of possession to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 his liability for eviction would come to an end and relief of eviction sought by Surendra Singh in S.C.C. Suit No. 55 of 2001 and U.P.U.B. Case No. 34 of 2004 would become infructuous. U.P.U.B. Case No. 35 of 2004 will become infructuous after vacation of the property in dispute by the tenant-petitioner. S.C.C. Suit No. 55 of 2001 will survive only with respect of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation.;