S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/release i proceedings initiated against them by landlord-respondent No. 2, Abdul Shakoof f on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in I the form of Rent Case No. 67 of 1982, on the file of Prescribed Authority/Civil I Judge, Kanpur Nagar. Release application was rejected on 30.11.1988. Against the said judgment and order landlord-respondent No. 2 filed Rent Appeal No. 7 of 1989. IXth A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar, through judgment and order dated 5.7.1996 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application, hence this writ petition by the tenants.
(2.) Accommodation in dispute is residential in nature consisting of only one room and is part of House No. 11/103-A. Rent is Rs. 12/- per month. During pendency of appeal (which remained pending for about 7 years) landlord got the release application amended and stated that number of his family members was 13 and in the year 1991 he had obtained possession of two rooms of the House No. 11/103-A (of which accommodation in dispute is a part) arid reconstructed the same and started residing along with family therein. He stated that he required additional accommodation for his big and growing family. At the timed filing the release application landlord, according to the allegation in his release application, was residing in a tenanted accommodation number of which was 11/165. On behalf of tenants it was asserted that landlord had several other accommodations at his disposal. A. Commission was appointed by the Prescribed Authority to inspect those houses. The Advocate Commissioner submitted his report on 19.12.1987. The Commissioner reported that accommodation Bearing No. 12/2-A was a shop, accommodation Bearing No. 12/1 contained 8 Khaprail sheds out of which some were in occupation of the tenants and the, rest were in occupation of llahi Bux, father of landlord respondent No. 2. In respect of House No. 11/165, (or 11/168) it was found by the Commissioner that llahi Bux was tenant thereof. House No. 11/188 was found to belong to another person and in possession of tenants, llahi Ftux was found residing along with his family in House No. 11/163. In House No. 11/103 (of which the accommodation in dispute is a part), two rooms were found in possession of Abdul Shakoor, landlord and the said portion was under construction.
(3.) The Appellate Court found that the landlord was residing in two rooms and' his family was quite big, hence his need was quite bona fide.;