S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlords' respondents 1 to 3 on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of rent Case No. 67 of 1984 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Additional JSCC, Kanpur Nagar. Property in dispute is part of a house Bearing No. 101/41 - A Colonolganj, Kanpur. Release application was filed by two brothers Mohd. Khalid and Mohd. Ashraf respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and their mother Musammat Ummul Masoon -respondent No. 3. In the release application it was stated that landlords were residing in the portion adjacent to the accommodation in dispute forming part of the same house alongwith their families consisting of thirteen members in one big room, one small room and a store room and that the accommodation in dispute which consists of two rooms and other amenities was bonafidely required by them. It was also pleaded that tenant was retired railway employee and one of his sons was M.B.B.S. Doctor and a private practitioner and the other son was employed in railways. Tenant tiled written statement and mainly pleaded that landlords had much more accommodation in their possession than disclosed by them and that several tenants of different portions of same premises i.e., Premises No. 101/41- had been evicted and new tenants had been inducted disproving the need of the landlord. Prescribed Authority held that landlords had several other properties in which they were joint owners which they had concealed. In this regard three houses were specifically pointed out Bearings Nos. 101/392, 101/393 and 101/318 Colonganj, Kanpur. Commissioner was also appointed to inspect the promises in dispute and other properties of landlords. Prescribed Authority found that some of the residential portions had been converted into commercial accommodation by the landlords and they had let out the same to other tenants From this fact Prescribed Authority inferred that in case landlords had by bonafide need for residential accommodation, instead of constructing commercial accommodation they would have constructed residential portion. Towards the end of its judgment, Prescribed Authority observed as follows : "Thus, the petitioners have not disclosed the correct facts and they have concealed the facts Thus their need are not genuine and bonafide, though they have at legal need of the additional accommodation but due to concealment of fact they are not entitled to get the benefit of it."
(2.) Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 14.9.1987 rejected the release application. Against the said judgment and order landlords filed rent Appeal No. 254 of 1987. Vlth A D J., Kanpur Nagar allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 1.3.1989. This writ petition by the tenant is directed against the aforesaid judgment of Appellate Court.
(3.) Landlords had pleaded that they had only two rooms at their disposal while tenants asserted that landlords had ten rooms in their possession.;