- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought writ in the na ture of certiorari, quashing the order dated 11. 11. 1983 (copy Annexure-1 to the writ petition), passed by Prescribed Authority, and order dated 19. 4. 1988 (copy Annexure 2 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No. 1 affirming the order passed by Prescribed Authority.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner, a landlord of house No. 173, Bara Bazar, Malli Tal, Nainital, moved an application under section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred as U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ). Respondent No. 3 is a tenant in the first floor of said house. The landlord lives in a tenanted accommodation with his family in house No. 175, Bara Bazar, Malli Tal, Nainital. Pleading that the petitioner's family is large and it is difficult to accommodate a large family in a tenanted accommodation, an application for release of accommoda tion in occupation of respondent No. 3 was sought to be released by the peti tioner, claiming his need to be bona fide. It is also alleged by the petitioner that comparative hardship of the petitioner is more than that of the tenant, who can shift to some other accommodation. Respondent No. 3, the tenant contested the application before the Prescribed Authority and alleged that the need of the petitioner is not bona fide. It is further pleaded by respondent No. 3 that the landlord's son Rejendra lal Sah, is a businessman and he can easily get alternative accommodation for his family. It is further pleaded in the written statement that in fact the fam ily of Rajendra lal Sah is already settled in Kotabagh (District Nainital ). Respondent No. 3 has further alleged that the house was purchased by the pe titioner in the year 1978 and the application has been moved only to pressurise the answering respondent either to vacate or agree to enhance the rate of rent. Lastly, it is stated that the answering respondent has no alternative accommo dation where he can shift his family.
(3.) CONTESTING parties filed affidavits in support of their cases as evidence before the Prescribed Authority. Prescribed Authority after hearing the par ties found that the petitioner's bona fide need is not proved. It further observed that tenant's hardship is more than that of landlord and rejected the applica tion under section 21 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 11. 11. 1983, passed by Prescribed Authority in rent control case No. 7 of 1982, the landlord Parsi lal Sah, preferred an appeal (rent control appeal No. 19 of 1983) before the District Judge, Nainital and the same was transferred to IVth Additional District Judge, who after hearing the parties affirmed the order, passed by Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 19. 4. 1988. Hence this writ petition was filed before Allahabad High Court in the year 1988. The writ petition is received by this Court by transfer under section 35 of U. P. Re-organisation Act, 2000, for its disposal. Admittedly, petitioner Shri Parsi lal Sah (since deceased), purchased the house No. 173 in the year 1978 in Bara Bazar, Malli Tal, Nainital, in which the respondent No. 3 is a tenant. The rate of rent Rs. 125/- per annum is also not disputed. It is also admitted between the parties that the landlord with his family, was living in the tenanted accommodation and now after his death his children are living in the tenanted accommodation in house No. 175 Bara Bazar, Malli Tal, Nainital. The main ground on which Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the petitioner appears to be that the landlord was having three rooms in the tenanted accommodation while the ac commodation in question consists of one and a half room. The Prescribed Authority took the opinion that if the petitioner's large family is not able to live in three room set, it cannot be believed that such family can live in one and a half room. The entire approach of the Prescribed Authority is erroneous in law. It is nowhere petitioner's case that he is vacating the house occupied by him. What he has pleaded in this that number of members of family are ten and since grand children are also living in the family, as such, not only there was paucity of accommodation but also there was problem of privacy for the members of family. This Court is of the view that if a landlord is living in a tenanted accommodation and unable to live in his own house what more can be his bona fide need. A landlord cannot be compelled to live in tenanted accom modation when he has got his own house.;