- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. List revised. No one appears for respondent No. 1 inspite of sufficient service under Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the High Court Rules.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceeding initiated by him against tenant-respondent No. 1 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Property in dispute is four rooms accommodation, which is part of a bungalow. In one portion of the bungalow consisting of only one room landlord is residing. Previously, he was employed with Indian Railways and after his retirement in the year 1974 he started residing in the one room accommodation available to him. Respondent No. 1 tenant is running a school in the accommodation in dispute. Release application was registered as Case No. 77/84 and was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority/munsif I, Jhansi through judgment and order dated 1-4-1985. Against the said judgment and order landlord- petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No. 28 of 1985, which was also, dismissed on 15. 111985 by II A. D. J. , Jhansi hence this writ petition. Both the Courts below dismissed the release application on the ground that landlord had set up the need for his mother-in- law, father-in-law and brother-in-law and they were not included in definition of family. In para 7 of release application it was clearly mentioned that one of the sons of the landlord got married in February, 1984 and had to take rented house at the rent of Rs. 100/- per month due to shortage of accommodation. Both the Courts below recorded a finding that the said son of the landlord was residing in a rented house hence there was no need of any accommodation for him. The lower Appellate Court in its judgments on page 29 of the paper book has mentioned that landlord has not mentioned in his affidavit that his aforesaid son is member of his family. Son is always member of the family of the father and no separate assertion in that regard is required. In para 7 of the release implication it was clearly mentioned that due to shortage of accommodation one of the sons of the landlord had to take rented house. This assertion has been found to be correct by the Courts below. If son of the landlord has to take a house on rent due to shortage of accommodation then there cannot be any doubt that need of the landlords as quite bona fide. A tenanted house can never be said to be accommodation available to landlord or his family members while deciding need of the landlord, vide G. K. Devi v. Ghanshyam Das, AIR 2000 SC 656 and Dhanna Lal v. Kalawati Bai, 2002 (48) ALR 678 (SC) : AIR 2002 SC 2572. In the year 1981 landlord permitted the tenant to use out house of the bungalow. From this fact Court below inferred that he had no bona fide need. Owner/land lord of a bungalow is not expected to reside in out houses/servant quarters.
(3.) IN respect of comparative hardship tenant did not show that he made any efforts to search alternative accommodation. This fact itself is sufficient to decide question of hardship against the tenant as held by the Supreme Court in B. C. Bhutada v. G. R. Mundada, AIR 2003 (SC) 2713. However, as in the accommodation in dispute a school is being run hence it will not be proper to evict the tenant from the entire accommodation. Accordingly, I hold that landlord fully proved his need and both the impugned judgments are erroneous in law. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for part release of accommodation in dispute. Accordingly, it is directed that two of the four tenanted rooms of the bungalow shall stand released in favour of the landlord.;