- (1.) A. N. Gupta, J. This matter relates to H. No. 332 consisting of three rooms situated in Mohalla Qasab Bara, Faizabad City in which the petitioner has been resid ing as tenant since the year 1960. One Mohd. Rafi Ullah was landlord of the house and during pendency of this litiga tion he died and Respondent Nos. 4 to 12 are his legal representatives. The landlord resides in the adjoining house No. 331 which consists of a rooms out of which 5 are small rooms. The family of landlord consists of 5 sons, 3 daughters and a wife. All these 5 sons have several children.
(2.) THE petitioner is a retired medical officer originally belonging to Sitapur where he owns a big house which is said to be in the tenancy of Sri Ram Lal Rahi presently in the Council of Ministers in the Central Government. He has no accom modation in Faizabad and is running his clinic at Faizabad city in a different premises. The landlord respondent moved an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the premises in question, namely. House No. 332 was required to accommodate the existing and expanding family of the landlord. This ap plication was resisted by the petitioner contending that he had no accommoda tion at Faizabad. His efforts to get his house vacated at Sitapur failed. He also could not succeed in getting any Nazul Land allotted in his favour at Faizabad. In fact, what he contended is that his com parative hardship is greater than the hardship of the landlord. The Prescribed Authority upheld the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the application of the landlord respondent. Aggrieved by this decision the landlord approached the District Judge by filing the appeal which has been allowed by the District Judge, Faizabad by means of impugned judgment dated 7- 9-81 against which the tenant has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. There was another litigation be tween the landlord and tenant earlier and in the year 1968 they entered into a com promise in which the petitioner tenant agreed to vacate the premises in question on finding out an alternative accommoda tion. Learned District Judge upheld the plea of the landlord respondent that their need for the premises in question was bona fide and genuine. On comparative hardship he gave the following finding: "to my mind, in the circumstances of the case, the hardship that may be experienced by the landlords in case their application is dis missed would in no case be less than the one which would be experienced by the tenant if he was asked to vacate the accommodation. In other words, taking a very liberal view in favour of the tenant, the utmost that can be said is that the hardship of the landlords in the event of dismissal of their petition may be evenly balanced against the hardship of the tenant in case a contrary course was adopted and even in such a case the landlord had to succeed, as has been held in the decision in Pooran Chand Shar-ma v. Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, 1979 ARC 62. "
(3.) NONE appeared on behalf of the landlords opposite parties No. 4 to 12 in-spite of the fact that they had filed a counter- affidavit and, therefore, this writ petition is being finally disposed of after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner only. From the perusal of the order of the District Judge which has been quoted above, it is clear that the District Judge came to the conclusion that the hardship of the tenant as wall as landlords was even ly balanced and the petitioner tenant would also suffer hardship if the applica tion of the landlords was allowed and landlord would also suffer equal hardship in case ejectment application was dis missed. I have gone through the record and find that there is no justification for revers ing these findings of the District Judge. The landlords are nine in number and even if three married daughters are excluded therefrom it leaves six landlords, out of whom five are grown up sons having several children. Theirs is an expanding family and obviously the present accom modation is insufficient for all of them. Similarly, tenant petitioner has a house at Sitapur but unfortunately he has not been able to get that accommodation vacated from a Minister in the Central Council of Ministers, who is his tenant. He has to reside at Faizabad wherein spite of his best efforts he has not been able to obtain an alternative accommodation. In fact the tenant and the landlord in the earlier litigation entered into a compromise wherein tenant had agreed to vacate the premises in question provided he was able to find out alternative accommodation which he failed to find. In view of this, there can be no dispute to the findings arrived at by the learned District Judge that the hardship of the tenant as well as the landlords is evenly and equally balanced.;