- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion is filed by the landlady-owner of the premises in question. The respondent is a tenant of the premises.
(2.) AN application under Section 21 (1) (a)of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was moved by the owner for release on the ground that she was living with her mother-in-law Smt. Niyazan Begum in her house. The said house was disposed of under a decree passed by the Civil Court in original suit No. 311 of 1975. Thereafter the petitioner came and started living with her mother Smt. Sayeeda Begum. The house of the petitioner's mother Smt. Sayeeda Begum consists of two rooms in the ground-floor and one Baithaka at the upper storey and three families were residing in it. Ultimately she had to shift and take another accommodation on rent at the rate of Rs. 120 per month for her residence. The application under Section 21 giving rise to the present writ petition was filed when the petitioner was in fact giving in the rented accommodation. In the application under Section 21 it was said in para 10 that the application has a personal need as well as desires to live in her own house. The case was contested by the respondent by filing a written state ment and affidavits were exchanged between the parties and affidavits of wit nesses were filed. The copies of the application and written statement are on the record. The learned counsel for the parties placed the application and the written statement before the court. The perusal of these two documents and the judgment of both the courts below do not show the extent of the size of the accommodation in possession of the petitioner and the tenant respondent. It has come in evidence as well as finding of the prescribed authority that the family of the petitioner consists of eight persons and the size of the accom modation in possession of the petitioner is one room and one Baithak. Neither the respondent disclosed the size and area of the accommodation in his tenancy nor did he disclose the number of his family members. The prescribed authority in its judgment, after referring to the pleading of the petitioner and the defence of the respondent, finally allowed the application under Section 21. The perusal of the judgment of the prescribed authority shows that there is no clear and categorical finding about comparative hard ship of the tenant-respondent and it has not been specifically mentioned why it was necessary to release the accommodation in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the narration of fact and observations in the judgment of the prescribed authority indicate that the prescribed authority applied its mind and was legally correct in making such observations which are not mere observations but findings about the bona fide need and there was no further necessity of finding of more elaborate reasons about comparative hardship.
(3.) THE respondent being aggrieved by the judgment of the prescribed authority filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was transferred and finally decided by the V Additional District Judge, Bareilly by the impugned judgment. In appeal the judgment of the prescribed authority was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Heard Sri Vipin Sinha, counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. M. L. Hajela and Sri T. P. Singh, counsel for the respondent and perused the record of the case.;