S.D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The property in dispute is house No. 150, situate in Mohalla Gangapur, Bareilly. It is not disputed that the landlord Kripa Shankar Caucasian, re pendent No. 3 is in occupation of the part of the premises in dispute. The Petitioner is the tenant -, The landlord moved an application Under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the Act for getting the property released as according to him, he required the other portion of the house for his use and occupation. This application was allowed by the prescribed authority by its judgment dated 9.2.1982. Against the order dated 9.2.82 an appeal was filed by the Petitioner Under Sec. 22 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate court by judgment dated 16th of September, 1985. The Petitioner has now challenged both the decisions of the prescribed authority as well as the appellate court by means of the present petition.
(2.) The application was moved by the Respondent -landlord on the ground that he bonafide required the accommodation in dispute for his use and, occupation. According to him he had a family of six persons including himself wife and four graven up children and it was further case of the landlord that the latrine and delis was commonly shared with the landlord and tenant. This was contested by the Petitioner. Both the prescribed authority and the appellate court have recorded categorical findings of fact that the need ol the landlord -Respondent was bonafide and genuine and that the landlord requires an additional accommodation. Both the courts below have recorded a finding that comparing the hardship of the landlord and tenant, the hardship of the landlord would be greater in case the accommodation is not released than that of the tenant. With these findings the application for release was allowed.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.;