S.U. Khan, J. - - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of.eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady-respondent No. 2, Shrimati Brij Rani Devi, on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of Rent Case No. 102 of 1978, on the file of Prescribed Authority Munsif Hawaii, Kanpur. Accommodation in dispute is residential in nature and consists of four rooms, Varandah, kitchen, bath room and court-yard on the ground floor. First floor consists of one small room and one big room. However height of the big room (8 feet 8 inches x 23 feet) is only 6 feet 10 inches. On the second floor there is only one room height of which is only 6 feet 3 inches. This room is also quite big i.e. 8 feet 8 inches x 22 feet. I and II floors are in occupation of landlord. Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 19.8.1983 rejected the release application. Against the said order landlady respondent No. 2 filed rent appeal No. 249 of 1983. Ist A.D.J. Kanpur through judgment and order dated 3.5. 1985 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlady, hence this writ petition by the tenant.
(2.) Landlady pleaded that her family consisted of 25 members and accommodation at her disposal was quite insufficient. After going through the entire material on record Appellate Court recorded a finding that all the members of the landlady's family were residing with her in the accommodation in dispute except one of her sons Virendra Kumar Shukla, who was residing along with his family in another city. The tenant had pointed out that one Dinesh Kumar Shukla, who was the tenant of the landlady in another accommodation had vacated the same. Appellate Court found that he had been residing along with the landlady and he had left the premises in the year 1975. As the entire first and second floor accommodation was taken into consideration by the Appellate Court, hence it does not make any difference that part of the said accommodation was earlier in occupation of Dinesh Kumar Shukla and he later on vacated the same. It was shown that husband of the landlady had sold a plot. Having a plot and selling the same does not make any difference when release is sought of residential accommodation.
(3.) In respect of comparative hardship Appellate Court found that the tenant was employed in Reserve Bank of India, hence he could very well arrange for alternative accommodation as he had retired and received good amount as retiral benefits. It was also found by the Appellate Court that one of the sons of tenant had acquired an accommodation of 3 rooms and other amenities and had shifted in the said house. It was also found that the sons of the tenants were employed on good posts in different banks.;