- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against impugned orders dated 9-12-2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority and 11-12-2006 passed by the appellate Court. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that need of the landlord for the accommodation in dispute under the tenancy of the petitioners is bona fide and genuine and his comparative hardship is greater than the tenants. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid two impugned orders, appended as Annexures 14 and 15 respectively to the writ petition and for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to dispossess the petitioners from the accommodation in dispute in pursuance of the impugned orders. The facts of the case as culled out from record are that Sri Kailash Narain is landlord of house in dispute, which is situated in Mohalla Mandi Jawaharganj, Town Jaleshar, District Etah. Petitioners are tenants on the first floor of the aforesaid premises consisting of two room admeasuring 6 ft x 8 ft each, a small courtyard, latrine/bathroom and kitchen on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/ -.
(3.) THE premises in dispute was taken on rent by Sri Ramesh Chandra Gupta, the husband of Smt. Kastoori Devi, petitioner No. 1. She claims that she is living in the accommodation in dispute with her two sons- Sri Dilip Kumar Gupta and Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the present writ petition. The landlord filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'u. P. Act No. XIII of 1972'), which was registered as P. A. Case No. 17 of 1997, Kailash Narain v. Ramesh Chandra Gupta, for release of the tenanted accommodation for his residential use on the ground of bona fide need and comparative hardship. The case of the landlord was that the tenant-Sri Ramesh Chandra Gupta had already purchased landed property, as such, he will suffer less hardship than the landlord, whose need and hardship was more looking into the number of members of his family who were living in only three small rooms.;