S.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) This is tenant's petition directed against order of eviction passed in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972). The dispute in the petition pertains to ground-floor of house No. 25, New Berry Road, Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow. The first floor of this accommodation is in the possession of the landlord. The tenant-petitioner has lost before both the authorities.
(2.) The aforesaid application under Section 21 was filed by the Smt. Sheo Kala Bajpai. During the pendency of the proceedings before the authorities below she died and her heirs were brought on record who are opposite parties Nos. 3 to 19 in this petition.
(3.) The landlord had pleaded that the accommodation in question had been let out to the petitioner in the year 1966 when the size of her family was comparatively small and over the years the family has grown and additional accommodation is required. It was also stated that she was sufficiently advanced in age and her Husband was also old and it was inconvenient for them to stay on the first floor. The accommodation at her disposal was stated to comprise of three rooms measuring 16 ft. x 16 ft., 16 ft. x 12 ft. and 16 ft. x 12 ft. Apart from these three rooms an additional room was also stated to be in her possession which was over the garrage. In this manner four rooms were available to the landlady. At the time of filing application the family staying at Lucknow was stated to comprise of twelve members. The details of the members staying at Lucknow was given in paragraph 9 of the application under Section 21, Annexure-21. Out of these twelve members there were two married sons of the landlady, namely. Ashwani Kumar Bajpai and Ajay Kumar Bajpai, Ashwani Kumar Bajpai's family comprised of himself, his wife and three children while the family of Ajay Kumar Bajpai comprised of himself, his wife and two children. One of the sons of the landlay Shashi Kumar Bajpai was earlier posted out of Lucknow but in the year 1975 he was transferred to Lucknow. On account of paucity of accommodation on the first floor of the house in question he had to take a house on rent at Nirala Nagar where he is staying along with his family comprising of himself, his wife and children. The plea of the landlady was that Shashi Kumar Bajpai was living in a rented accommodated because the accommodation at her disposal was insufficient. Both, the Prescribed Authority and the learned Additional District Judge here upheld the claim of bona fide requirement set up by the landlady. They have also made a compression of the hardships and come to the conclusion that the petitioner will suffer lesser hardship in the event of his being evicted from the accommodation in question inasmuch as he is financially well off.;