RAVI S.DHAVAN - (1.) -The issue in the present writ petition relates to two retired people wanting to reside in an accommodation. The landlord retired from the Army as a Junior Commissioned Officer and desires to firstly reside in the accommodation which he owns and secondly use it also for setting up his practice as a Doctor. The landlord is residing in an accommodation which he has taken on rent. This accommodation has only one room 8' x 10' verandah and a privy. There are five members which constitute his family.
(2.) THE accommodation where the tenant resides was purchased by the landlord seven years ago. In these circumstances the landlord sought release of the accommodation in possession of the tenant, under section 21 of U. P. Act no. XIII of 1972. The tenant has also retired from service. His one son is employed in Delhi. The other son, is married, and has given the petitioner a grand son and they reside with the petitioner. The written statement discloses that he is a medical representative and has a vocation of his own. The Prescribed Authority granted the release of the accommodation to the landlord. The District Judge in appeal affirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority. The tenant has filed this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The tenant contends, that during the pendency of the proceedings he and his family have had to suffer consequences of two unfortunate incidents. Firstly, he met with an accident and this impaired his normal movement. Secondly his married daughter was deserted by her husband and she lives with him.
(3.) THE case of both the tenant and the landlord as presented before the courts below is one basically of hardsdips . THE landlord is also a retired personnel of the Army and lives in a small rented accommodation when he otherwise has a house of his own. In his family there are five members and they are all bundled in one room. THE tenant has also retired, has two sons who make a living on their own and his daughter had been married but lives with him now after she was deserted. THE tenant is convalescing after injuries sustained in an accident. It is not the tenant's case that the landlord does not bonfide require the accommodation for his personal use. THE denial of the accommodation to the landlord, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, will cause extreme hardship to him and the very purpose for which section 21 (1) (a) of the Act permits release of an accommodation, would be defeated, if the landlord lives in a rented accommodation when he could reside in his own house. THE tenant would also face hardship in parting with the accommodation immediately. THE landlord cannot be denied the accommodation and to this extent both the courts below came to a right conclusion. It appears that probably it did not strike either of the courts below to grant sufficient time in the facts and circumstances of the case to the tenant to vacate the accommodation. Thus, the court, regard being had to this facts of the present case, consider it appropriate that the ends of justice would be met if the tenant were to be granted one year, effective from the date of the appellate order, to wind up his affairs in the present accommodation and deliver it in a vacant state to the landlord ; one month granted by the appellate court, in the circumstances is not sufficient.;