V.K. Khanna, J. - (1.) Petitioner filed an application in the year 1982 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for getting the premises in dispute released in his favour. In the application the petitioner put forward his need for the disputed accommodation being pressing on the ground that proceedings for his eviction have been initiated by his landlord in respect of the accommodation in which he was residing. It is now not disputed that the matter regarding the ejectment of the petitioner from the accommodation in which he was living as tenant went up to the highest court and stands decided against him and the petitioner has, in fact, vacated the aforesaid premises. Petitioner filed evidence before the Prescribed Authority showing that part of the accommodation in dispute which consists of two rooms were already in his possession which was not sufficient for the residence of his family which consisted of six members.
(2.) The aforesaid application was contested by the tenant on the ground that the accommodation already in possession of the landlord was sufficient for his residential purposes and that the petitioner will sutler more hardship in case the application for release was granted.
(3.) The Prescribed Authority decided the application in favour of the petitioner and held that the need of the landlord was bona fide and he has been ordered to be evicted. On the question of comparative hardship a finding has been recorded that the need of the landlord was more pressing. Feeling aggrieved the tenant preferred an appeal which has been allowed under the impugned order.;