S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by original landlord-respondent No. 3 Diwan Chand Sharma, since deceased and survived by legal representatives against original tenant Rattomal, on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of U.P.U.B. Case No. 36 of 1980 on the file of Prescribed Authority, Aligarh. During pendency of release proceedings before Prescribed Authority original tenant Ratto Mal died and was substituted by his widow and one of his sons Parmanand. The other two sons of Rattomal i.e. Bhuramal and Asha Ram were residing at Bhopal, hence they were not impleaded.
(2.) PROPERTY in dispute is a house having four rooms, Varandah, Sehan and other amenities. Rent of the accommodation in dispute is Rs. 35/- per month. In the release application, it was stated that landlord had three sons out of whom two were serving in Army. (Now all the sons of original landlord have retired). Landlord pleaded that he was a retired Post-master and was residing in a small portion in house No. 171 Tantanparha, Aligarh alongwith his wife on rent which contained only one room. It was also pleaded that occasionally sons of the landlord visited him at Aligarh and for the said purpose tenanted accommodation at his disposal was quite in sufficient. It was also asserted that two of the grand-sons of the landlord intended to reside with him at Aligarh for getting education. It was also pleaded that Parma Nand, son of original tenant Rattomal, resided at 154 Kothi Lankram, G.T. Road, Aligarh and that even the widow of Rattomal was not residing with him at the time of his death and she was residing at Bhopal alongwith her sons. Additional Prescribed Authority/Munsif Hawali, Aligarh through judgment and order dated 27-1-1982 dismissed the release application. Against the said judgment and order original landlord Diwan Chand filed U.P. U.B. Appeal No. 10 of 1984. 3rd A.D.J. Aligarh through judgment and order dated 14-12-1982 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlord. Appellate Court held that Parma Nand resided at house No. 154/6 Kothi Lankram and in the house in dispute alongwith Rattomal his sister's son Gopi Chand was residing.
(3.) IN respect of bona fide need Appellate Court held that the tenanted accommodation in possession of the landlord consisted of a very small room, hence his need was quite bona fide. I fully agree with the findings of the learned lower appellate Court. Even otherwise tenanted accommodation available to the landlord cannot be takeninto consideration while deciding his bona fide need for his own house vide G.K. Devi v. Ghanshyam Das, AIR 2000 SC 656.;