S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady respondent No 3 Shrimati Narain Devi, on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of Rent Case No. 33 of 1988 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Vth Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar. Prescribed Authority allowed the release application on 9.4.1990. Tenant-petitioner filed Rent Appeal No. 36 of 1990 against the said judgment and order, which was dismissed by Xllth Additional District Judge, Kapur Nagar on 21.5.1993, hence this writ petition.
(2.) Property in dispute is residential accommodation, which is situate on first floor of House No. 16 R.A Bazar, Top Khana, Cantt. Kanpur. According to the release application family of the landlady consisted of herself and two sons Madho Lal and Vishnu Dayal and their wives and four children of Madho Lal and two children of Vishnu Dayal. It was further pleaded by landlady that in House No. 16 R.A. Bazar she possessed one small room and a Kothari on the ground floor and one Kothari on the first floor. It was further alleged that in the adjacent house Bearing No. 18 R.A Bazar, she and her sons had 1/3rd share and the remaining 2/3rd share was owned by two brothers of deceased husband of the landlady and that in the said house i.e., House No. 18, her elder son Madho Lal was residing. It was also stated that house No. 18 was quite small consisting of only one room, kitchen and bath room. It was also stated that tenant had constructed his own house; just adjacent to the tenanted accommodation. In respect of the said house tenant pleaded that it was constructed by his son unauthorizedly on the land of Cantonment Board.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Pucca constructions have been made by the landlady in House No. 18 R.A. Bazar consisting of two rooms on the ground floor and one on the first floor. Even if this allegation is taken to be correct, still the family of Madho Lal, elder son of the landlady, is quite big and the said accommodation would hardly be sufficient for him. In the remaining portion of the house in dispute (other than the tenanted portion), landlady is residing along with her son Vishnu Dayal, his wife and two children. The accommodation available to the landlady in House No. 16 R.A. Bazar, Topkhana, Cantt. Cannot be said to be sufficient for her and her family Courts below, in my opinion did not commit any error of law in recording the finding on bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlady. Even if the house alleged to have been constructed by the tenant is held to be constructed by his son, he has inherent right to reside therein. Even otherwise the tenant did not show that what efforts he made to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application, hence balanced of hardship tilted against him vide B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada, AIR 2003 SC 2713 : 2005 (2) ARC 899.;