O.P.JAIN,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition by the tenant is directed against the order dated 19.5.95, Annexure 7, passed by the Appellate Court. The house in question is 55, Laxmi Gate, Jhansi. The landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act that he requires the house in question for his personal use because there are 13 members in his family and the accommodation which is in his possession (59, Laxmi Gate, Jhansi) is not sufficient. The application of the landlord was rejected vide Annexure 2 but on an appeal being filed by the landlord the matter was remanded by the Additional District Judge on 24th August, 1985. After remand the premises were inspected by the Rent Control Inspector. The application of the landlord was once again dismissed on 12th September, 1986. The landlord-petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed by the impugned order dated 18.5.1995. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the landlord has three houses; one in 55, Laxmi Gate, which is the house in question and the other is 59, Laxmi Gate, and the 3rd is 210, Khushipura, Jhansi. A perusal of the record shows that 210, Khushipura is the shop in which the deceased landlord Ram Gopal was carrying on business of cycle repairing. 210, Khushipura cannot, therefore, said to be a residential house.
(3.) THE question which arose for determination before the Courts below was whether the accommodation at 59, Laxmi Gate was sufficient for the need of the landlord. It appears that there are 13 members in the family of the landlord which consists of two married sons and therefore, it has been held by the Appellate Court that the house 59, Laxmi Gate is not sufficient.;