- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9-12-1991, passel by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, allowing the release ap plication of the landlords and the order dated 6-1-1994, dismissing the appeal against the a foresaid order.
(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant of first floor portion of house No. 50/197, Naughara, Kanptir. Deoki Nandan Shukla was its landlord. He died during the penden cy of the case and was substituted by his heirs, respondents 3 to 7. THE landlord was residing on a ground floor portion of the same house in which the petitioner is resid ing. Deoki Nandan Shukla filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Build ing (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the portion of the house in occupation of the petitioner on 24-2-1984. It was stated by him that his fami ly consists of pimself, his wife, two sons aged about 18 and IZyears, daughter 16 years and the mother. THE accommodation with him on the ground floor consists of two living rooms which is hardly sufficient. His one of the daughters has been married and she often comes to reside with him. THE tenant owns house No. 51/7-D (Old) 51/30 (New) Ramganj, Kanpur and his father purchased the house No. 128/3-H-2, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur in the name of his wife and the petitioner can shift in that house and will not suffer any hardship. The petitioner contested the ap plication on the ground that the landlord has concealed the accommodation in his possession. He demolished certain portions of the accommodation which were vacated by the tenants and if he needed the accom modation, he instead of demolishing those portions could have repaired and started living in those portions. He clarified that house No. 51/7-D is a commercial accom modation and the house No. 128/3 H-2, Kid wai Nagar, Kanpur is in the name of his mother and he has no right to shift in that accommodation. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application of the landlord by his order dated 9-12- 1991. It came to the conclusion that the accommodation with the landlord was insufficient for residential purpose. The landlord had not demolished any portion of the house as alleged by the tenant. The petitioner can shift to the residence of his mother, 128/3-H, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur, which was acquired sub sequently. This order has been affirmed by the appellate authority, respondent No. 1, by the impugned order dated 6-1-1994. I have heard Sri K. L. Grover, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Dayal, learned counsel for the respon dents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accommodation with the landlord is sufficient for residential pur pose. In this respect a Commissioner was appointed. He found that the house in ques tion consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor. On the ground floor the landlords are residing. They have got four rooms (1) 12' X 15' (2) 8'x9' (3) 5'x5' and (4) 7'x8'. One is being used for store room, another small room for Poojaghar and two rooms are being used for the residential purpose. On the second floor the landlords have only one small Barotha and tin shed which can hardly be used for residential purpose. The tenant has three rooms in his tenancy. Deoki Nandan Shukla, the landlord died during the pendency of the case. He was survived by his widow, respon dent No. 3, two sons-Manish Kumar and Mohit Kumar. Manish Kumar has since been married, Mohit Kumar is alleged to be aged about 25 years and is of marriageable age. The two daughters though have been married but they come and reside with their mother. Considering the number of family members it was found that the landlord needs atleast five rooms for residential pur pose. This finding is based on appreciation of evidence by respondents 1 and 2 and does not suffer from any manifest error of law. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord had demolished back portion of ground floor and the first floor of this very house is in occupation of other tenants and since the landlord himself demolished those portions, he cannot claim that his need is bonafide and genuine inasmuch as instead of demolishing those portions, he could have occupied the portions vacated by the tenant and could have used the same after making necessary repairs in those accommodations. This aspect was considered in detail by the Prescribed Authority and has found that the version of the petitioner that the landlord had demolished those accommodations was incorrect. In fact, those portions were in dilapidated condition and had fallen down in due course.;