K.N. Goyal, J. - (1.) LATE Dr. Gopi Mohan Saxena had taken a structure consisting of Municipal Nos. 243, 244 and 245 on rent from one Raziada. It consisted of a ground floor and first floor. The Municipal numbers 243, and 245 Were on the ground floor while Municipal No. 244 was on the first floor. In other words, the structure consisting of Municipal No. 244 was just above Municipal Nos. 243 and 245. In Municipal No. 245 Dr. Saxena used to have his clinic and medical store while in Municipal No. 244 he used to reside with his family. The landlord Sri Raizada transferred the property to Bishambhar Nath Bajpai and Mohammad Yusuf, opposite parties 3 and 4 respectively. Bajpai got the shop No. 245 and the portion of the house No. 244 which was immediately above the shop 245, while Yusuf got a shop 243 (which was not under the tenancy of Saxena) and the portion of the house No. 244 which was above No. 243.
(2.) DR . Saxena had his own residential house which under the tenancy of a third person. He got that house vacated under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972: on the ground of his personal need. He thereafter moved into that house but did not vacate the house No. 244. Thereupon the two new landlords, namely, Bajpai and Yusuf, moved the 'District Magistrate' i.e., Rent Control & Eviction Officer (exercising the powers of the District Magistrate) for declaring the house No. 244 to be vacant. While the proceedings were pending before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dr. Saxena died and the petitioners were brought on record as his legal representatives. After hearing the parties the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared house No. 244 to be vacant and further, on the release application of the new landlords, released the respective portions of that house which had been purchased by them in their favour Shop No. 245 continues without dispute to remain with the petitioners. Against this order the petitioners preferred a revision in the court of the District Judge. The IV Additional District Judge, to whom the revision was transferred, dismissed the revision. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) BOTH , the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Additional District Judge, have held that the new landlords, namely, Bajpai and Yusuf, have genuine personal need and that the respective Portions of the house No. 244 should be released in their favour. This finding of fact does not suffer from any manifest error and there is no ground for interference with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction.;