S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord-respondent No. 3- Gopal Das on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 15 of 1982 on the file of Prescribed Authority, Hathras. Landlord stated that he was employed in Bombay from where he had retired and he required the accommodation in dispute for his residence as well as residence of his family. Accommodation in dispute is situate on the ground floor and contains one room and other amenities. First floor accommodation was also in possession of another tenant who on the request of the landlord vacated the same after retirement of the landlord. On the first floor there is on room of 17 feet x 17 feet. Apart from it one kothari is also n possession of the landlord.
(2.) Landlord further pleaded that one of his sons was well settled and employed with some Bank and posted outside Aligarh. However, the other son of the landlord was not much educated and he was running a small hotel. Landlord also stated that he had two daughters who were highly qualified. Prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 20.8.1985 dismissed the release application. Against the said judgment and order landlord-respondent filed U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 90 of 1985. IVth A.D.J., Aligarh through judgment and order dated 22.5.1990 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed authority and allowed the release application of the landlord hence this writ petition by the tenant.
(3.) The first argument raised by learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner is that the application under Section 21 (1-A) of the Act was barred by time as it was filed after one and half years of retirement of the landlord. Even if this argument is accepted, it will not have any material bearing on the fate of the case as the application filed by the landlord could also be treated to be under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The Appellate Court thoroughly examined the bonafide need of the landlord as well as comparative hardship.;