- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This writ petition is by the tenant of the residential accommodation, which was released by the order of the prescribed authority dated 16-9-1982 in a proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the appeal of the petitioner against the said judgment was also dismissed by the II Additional District Judge, Kanpur by the order dared 5-1-1983 affirming the judgment of the prescribed authority.
(2.) THE landlord-respondent sought for release of the accommodation in the tenancy of the petitioner in premises No. 28/106 Pheel Khana, Kanpur consisting of 3 rooms, verandah, latrine, bath-room and Chhajja in the first floor. THE respondent-landlord pressed his case on the genuine and bonafide need for the accommodation in question for his own family on the ground that his family consisted of eight persons. THEre was one married couple, one major son and children between 3 to 15 years of age when the application for release was filed in the year 1981. Anil Kumar was a student and three daughters of the respondent were students of Class I, II and VII at that time. Another son Pramod Kumar was unemployed. It was also said the Pramod Kumar was of unsound mind, who needed one room exclusively. THE respondent had in his possession one room 9 'x8' a tin shed 7'x6', used as a kitchen, a Kothari 5'x5' on the ground floor. THEre was no study room for the children or sitting room or a guest room. THE respondent-landlord, who was an Instructor at I. I. T. , needed the accommodation in possession of the tenant for his own use and occupation. THE tenancy was inducted by the respondent in the year 1959 when the size of the family of the respondent was small. The family of the petitioner consisted of one named couple and seven children. The eldest son of the tenant was an earning member and was in service. The application for release was contested by the petitioner saying that the need of the landlord was not genuine. The number of family mem bers of the respondent and unsound minded Pramod, son of the respondent was not disputed. The petitioner has said that the landlord desired to raise the rent, hence mala fide the application for release was filed by him. It was also said that the landlord will suffer no hardship, as he was already settled and the tenant shall be put to a greater hardship and will be thrown on the street it' the application for release was allowed. It was also said by the petitioner that the respondent had let out a room in the ground floor recently. Had there been a genuine need, the respondent would never had let out the said room in the ground-floor. The petitioner also said to have invested thousands of rupees in improving the condition of the tenanted accommodation.
(3.) BEFORE the prescribed authority the parties filed their evidence in the shape of affidavits and a commission was also issued, who also issued who submitted a report and map of the premises showing the portions in possession of the petitioner and the landlord respectively. The lower appellate court, who concurred with the judgment of the prescribed authority had also made a local inspection of the premises m presence of the parties on 13-4-1983 and found that the ground-floor Kothari is not fit at all for habitation having no ventilation for light and air. The room was said by the lower appellate court to be totally dark opening to the gallary on one side and having closed door in a shop on the ground floor which is also adjoining to the gallary having a nominal width and much longer length. The commissioner had also reported that the accommodation in possession of the respondent-landlord was wholly insufficient to accommodate the respondent with eight family members. The lower appellate court record ed a finding after inspecting the accommodation in possession of the respon dent that in the room on the second floor measuring 9'x8', by no stretch of imagination, not more than two cots can be put. Thus the authorities below recorded a finding, after appreciation of evidence, that the need of the res pondent-landlord for the accommodation in the tenancy of the petitioner was more pressing, genuine and bona fide and was to be released in favour of the respondent.;