A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenants petition directed against the order dated 01.12.1982 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur allowing an appeal filed by the landlady of the disputed premises against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting an application hied by the landlady Under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short) which was filed for the eviction of the Petitioners 2. Premises No. 68/90 Lowman Mahan, Kanpur is owned by Smt. Shamed, the Respondent No. 2 in the petition. The ground and second floor portions of this building are in the occupation of the said Respondent while the first floor portion was in the tenancy of the Petitioners. The landlady filed an application in the year 1974 Under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for an order of eviction against the Petitioners on the ground that she required the building under tenancy for the use and occupation of herself and members of her family which then consisted of 11 members. The accommodation in her occupation was grossly inadequate for her growing need. The hardship which she would suffer in the event of her application being dismissed would be far better than that likely to be suffered by the tenants in case the application was allowed inasmuch as in the first place the family of the tenant was small and in the second place
(2.) PREMISES No. 68/84 of the same locality belonging to their aunt was also available for their residence as she was not residing at Kanpur. The tenant could shift and occupy the entire ground floor portion of that house. The landlady also relied on Explanation IV to Section 21(1) of the Act which provided that if the tenant was in occupation of a portion of a building in the remaining part of which the landlord himself was residing, the need of the latter for the building under tenancy would be deemed to be bonfire within the meaning of Section 21(1)(a). The above application was contested by the Petitioners. Their case was that the need of the landlady was not bonfire at all. The accommodation already in her possession in the aforesaid building was more than ample for her requirements. In any case, the hardship which the tenant would suffer on the landlady's application being allowed would be far better than that likely to be suffered by the landlady. Further, it was wrong to say that the Petitioners' aunt was not residing at Kanpur. The application filed by the landlady was also defective as the two Petitioners were in occupation of distinct portion of the accommodation under separate tenancy. A single petition was hence not competent.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the landlady interlaid on the ground that the application was defective for the aforesaid reason.;