Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THE petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.6.1992, whereby the appeal of the landlady respondent No. 2 was allowed and the disputed accommodation was released in her favour and the order rejecting the application of the petitioner. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is residing on first floor of house No. 36, Ram Nagar, Meerut. Respondent No. 2 is residing on the ground floor, Respondent No. 2 filed an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the disputed accommodation on the allegations that her family consists of her husband, one son and three daughters. One daughter has been married. The accommodation in her occupation consists of two rooms. The son of petitioner namely, Ashok Kumar has acquired a house and her daughter -in -law Smt. Asha Saxena has purchased a house in Mohalla Shastri Nagar, Meerut and therefore, she will not face any difficulty in shifting to that accommodation. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application, by order dated 30th March, 1991 on the finding that the respondent No. 2 has sufficient accommodation for residential purpose and does not require any additional accommodation. Her daughters -in -law are residing separately. On the date of hearing of the case Counsel for the petitioner filed an application for adjournment before the Appellate Authority. On his application respondent No. 1 fixed 6th May, 1992. On the said date none appeared before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 proceeded to decide the appeal. He allowed the appeal or 11th May, 1992 holding that the need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine. It was further found that one son of the petitioner has acquired a house and daughter -in -law Smt. Asha Saxena has purchased a house in mohalla Shastri Nagar, Meerut. The petitioner shall not suffer any hardship. The appeal was allowed on 11th May, 1992. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the said order dated 13th August 1992 on the ground that she had fallen ill and could not appear on the date of hearing of the case. This application was rejected by the respondent No. 1 on 6.11.1992. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition. I have heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.S. Nigam, learned Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of respondent No. 1 whereby the application of the petitioner to recall the order dated 11.5.1992 was rejected. The petitioner had filed the application on the ground that between the period from 4.5.1992 till July 1992 she was ill. She was at Delhi in connection with her treatment and after recovering health she came back to Meerut. The petitioner had filed the Medical Certificate only for the period 4.5.1992 to 15.5.1992 and for the later period no medical certificate was filed. The allegation of the petitioner was that her son remained at Delhi between the period 15.5.1992 to 31.5.1992 but in the order sheet in S.C.C.R. No. 144, of 1992, Shushil Kumar had signed which belies the version of the petitioner. On the assessment of evidence on record by respondent No. 1, the order rejected the application. It does not suffer from any illegality. The next submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the need of the landlady has not been proved as bonafide. It has been found by the respondent No. 1 that the landlord has two living rooms. Her family consists of her husband. She has one son of marriageable age. There were three daughters one has already been married. The accommodation is hardly sufficient for her need and taking into consideration the number of members of the family and her status, the view taken by respondent No. 1 that the need of respondent No. 2 is bonafide, does not suffer from any illegality.
(3.) THE last submission of learned Council for the petitioner is that the hardship of the petitioner has not been considered. It is not denied by the petitioner that the family of the petitioner consists of her four sons. Her husband has already died. One of his sons Ashok Kumar has acquired house. The wife of his second son Smt. Asha Saxena has purchased a house in Mohalla Shastri Nagar, Meerut City. It is also alleged that her third son is living separately.;