- (1.) This is a tenant's petition arising out of proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. 1. Shri Amar Nath Kathuria and his wife are the owners of House No. 74 Block No. 2 Lunia Mohalla, Dehradun. The ground floor is in possession of the landlords while the first floor was let out to the petitioner. The landlords opposite partie Nos. 3 and 4 moved an application under Section 21 of the Act for release of the first floor on the ground that it is bonafide required for their needs. The application was resisted by the tenant, inter alia, on the grounds that the landlords have no bonafide need and that considerable hardship will be caused to him if he was evicted from the premises in dispute.
(2.) The prescribed Authority did not find favour with the contention of the landlords and rejected the application. They filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act and the learned District Judge, Dehradun, came to the conclusion that the landlords have genuine and bonafide need for the disputed accommodation and they will suffer greater hardship by the rejection of their application than will be caused to the tenant if the application was allowed. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the premises were released in favour of the landlords. The tenant was given six months' time to vacate the same.
(3.) I have looked into the entire material on the record. It is needless to say that in an application for release under Section 21 of the Act two questions arise for consideration. Firstly, whether the landlords has bonafide need for the building, and secondly, whether he is likely to suffer greater hardship from the rejection of the application than will be caused to the tenant if the application is allowed. In the instant case the learned District Judge has applied his mind to both the questions and decided them against the tenant. It is needless to say that finding on bonafide needs and comparative hardship is one of fact and cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless vitiated by manifest error of law. I am supported in this view by the cases of Ramdevi v. Vishnudeo Sharma,1976 RCC 185 and Avinandan Lal v. Second Additional District Judge,1976 RCC 268. Even on merits the petition has no force because so far as the bonafide need is concerned, the landlords' family consists of themselves and six sons. Three of their sons are major and two are of marriageable ages. The accommodation in their possession comprises of two rooms, one store room, a covered verandah and some appurtenances. As discussed by the learned District Judge, this accommodation is too much is sufficient for the requirements of the landlords and their sons. Obviously the marriage of their two sons is likely to take place shortly and then there will be considerable dearth of space. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the landlords require additional accommodation to meet the requirements.;