S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is tenants' writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 2 Devendra Das filed release application against tenants-petitioners for eviction/release on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 145 of 1992, Devendra Das v. Smt. R.D. Mishra and others. Release appli­cation was dismissed by Prescribed Authority/VIth A.C.J., Meerut through judgment and order dated 11.3,1994. Against the said judgment and order, land­lord respondent No. 2 filed Misc. Appeal No. 95 of 1994, Vth A.D.J., Meerut al­lowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 19.10.1995, set aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority and allowed the release application of the landlord. Said judgment has been challenged through this writ petition. Property in dispute is a house, rent of which is Rs. 18/- per month. It was pleaded in the release application that landlord was residing in the ad­joining house, which was constructed on 65 square yards land and was double storied and he additionally required the accommodation in dispute for his need. It was specifically stated that landlord had a cow, which he tied in a room in the house on the ground floor and for tying the said cow, he required the accommodation in dispute. The Appellate Court mainly allowed the appeal on the ground that landlord was teacher in a Junior High School hence his status was quite high and tenant admitted that he (tenant) was of ordinary status. In respect of bona fide need, it was further stated by the Lower Appellate Court that married daughters also occasionally come to their parents. It was a sort of general finding.
(3.) THE Appellate Court ultimately held that need of the landlord was bona fide. Thereafter Lower Appellate Court held that since all the sons of the original tenant-Deo Narain Mishra were employed and doing business, hence they could easily search alternative accommodation. It was further held that no efforts were made by the tenant to search alternative accommodation. Accordingly, it was held that balance of hardship lay against tenants and in favour of the landlord.;