- (1.) S. Rafat Alam, J. This is tenant's petition for quashing of the judgment and order dated 14-12-1987 of the Prescribed Authority, releasing the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord and also for quashing of the judgment and order dated 22-10-1991 of the learned Additional District Judge, IV, Bareilly, affirming the aforesaid judgment of the Prescribed Authority and dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
(2.) IT appears that the landlord (respon dent Nos. 3 to 7) moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (for short the Act), before the Prescribed Authority for the ejectment of the tenant from the accom modation in question and consequently, to release the same in their favour on the ground of personal need. The tenant ap peared and filed written statement. Both the parties given their evidence and after hearing them, the Prescribed Authority found that the need of the landlord is genuine and bona fide. While considering the comparative hardship of the tenant vis-a-vis landlord, the Prescribed Authority found that the hardship of the landlord is more pressing and greater than that of the tenant. Consequently, by the impugned judgment and order dated 14-12-1987 allowed the landlord's application and ordered to evict the tenant from the accom modation in question. Aggrieved the tenant went in appeal before the learned District Judge, Bareilly which was decided by the learned Addition al District Judge, IV, Bareilly who, by the impugned judgment dated 22-10-1991 af firmed the findings of the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal of the tenant.
(3.) SRI S. A. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that the landlord has got a big house bearing No. 480 of 20 rooms in his possession and therefore, the findings of the courts below that the need of the landlord is bona fide is not correct. It is further argued that the other two tenants of the premises in question have already va cated the accommodation, but this aspect has not been considered by the learned courts below. In my view, the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, can not be accepted for the reasons that the learned Prescribed Authority has found that the ancestor house bearing No. 480 located at Brahmpura Bhud, Bareilly, was of the father of the landlord and the same has been partitioned amongst the four brothers of the landlord in terms of the Will (Paper No. Aa/24) executed by their father and only three rooms have come in the share of the landlord which is inadequate to meet his requirement. It has further been found that the landlord Ramesh Chandra Saxena and his son Aditya Kumar Saxena, are practising lawyer and they need separate rooms for their office. It has also been found that the family of the landlord consists of seven adults members and, therefore, existing ac commodation in their favour, which is con sisting of three rooms only is insufficient, and therefore, he purchased the present house bearing No. 215 of Civil Lines, Bareil ly to meet his requirement, which is also at a very close distance to the Courts and Rail way Station. It has also been found that all the brothers are living separately. The ap pellate Court also affirmed the above find ing of the Prescribed Authority and found that the need of the landlord is genuine and bonafide.;