S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlords responded 3 to 7 on the ground of bonafide need under section 21 of UP. 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 bonafide. 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 bonafide. In the circumstances of the case, the need was not only bonafide but was pressing and urgent. Residing as a licensee or tenant is ho ground to reject release application on the ground of bonafide need. In this regard reference may be made to G.K. Devi v. Gnanshyam AIR 2000 SC 656, JT 2000 (1) SC 127, (2000)II MLJ104 (SC), 2000 (1)SCALE131, (2000)2 SCC1, [2000 ]1 SCR193 and N.E. Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies 1996 V AD(SC)606, AIR1997 SC 59, JT1996 (6)SC 468, 1996 (5)SCALE302, (1996)5 SCC344, [1996 ]Supp3 SCR466, 1996 (2)UJ703 (SC). The Appellate court, therefore, rightly held that bonafide 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 AIR2003 SC 2713, JT2003 (1)SC 438, 2003 (1)SCALE147, (2003)2 SCC320, 2003 (1)UJ726 (SC).
(3.) I, therefore do not find any error much less error of law apparent on the fact of the record in the judgment and order passed by the appellate court.;