S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by original landlord Devi Prasad, since deceased and survived by respondents 3 to 7, 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. 44 of 1986. Prescribed Authority/IVth Additional Civil Judge. Meerut through judgement and order dated 24.3.1988 allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order tenant-petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 93 of 1988. Vllth Additional District Judge, Meerut through judgement and order dated 19.8.1991 dismissed the appeal, hence writ petition.
(2.) Heard Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Goel, learned Counsel for the landlords-respondents.
(3.) The first point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the release application giving rise to the instant writ petition was filed within one year from dismissal of the earlier release application, hence it was not maintainable. The earlier release application was rejected on the ground of absence of notice. The earlier release application was rejected on the ground of absence of notice. Even if in the earlier release application finding on bonafide need was recorded in favour of landlords, however, in the subsequent proceeding giving rise to the instant writ petition fresh finding on bonafide need was also recorded in favour of the landlords. Courts below found that the landlord was living only in one room. Accommodation in dispute also consists of one room. If a landlord is living along with his family in one room accommodation, his need for additional accommodation can not be said to be not bonafide.;