- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri P. C. Jain, learned Counsel for landlord- respondents 3 to 5 who has appeared through caveat.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of. eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlords against him on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P. A Case No. 23 of 2007. Prescribed Authority/judge Small Causes Court, Agra through judgment and order dated 1. 3. 2008 allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order tenant-petitioner filed R. C. Misc. Appeal No. 49 of 2008. Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Agra dismissed the appeal through judgment and order dated 25. 7. 2008 hence this writ petition. Tenanted property in dispute is spread over two floors i. e. , ground floor and first floor. On the ground floor there is a baithak/drawing room rent of which is Rs. 200/- per month. On the first floor there are four rooms rent of which is Rs. 35/- per month. Release application was filed by Bankey Behari and Rajeev Kumar. During pendency of release application Bankey Behari died and was substituted by his two sons Vipin Behari and Raj Behari respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Rajeev Kumar Khandelwal is respondent No. 5) in the writ petition. In the release application it was stated that the property in dispute on both the floors jointly belonged to the landlords-applicants however under mu tual family arrangement rent of four rooms on the first floor was being realised by applicant No. 1-Bankey Behari and rent of Rs. 200/- per month of the ground floor was being realised by Rajeev Kumar applicant landlord No. 2. It was stated in the release application that family of Vipin Behari one of the land lords consisted of himself, a married son having two children and an unmarried daughter. It was further stated that Vipin Behari was working as an employee of Khandelwal Glass Works and by virtue of his employment his employer had given him a residential quarter and he was to retire within six months. He further stated that his daughter and daughter-in-law were not on good terms. As far as Raj Behari landlord is concerned, it was stated on his behalf that his family consisted of himself, his wife, a son and daughter and that he was re siding at Aligarh in a rented house and was paying Rs. 3,700/- per month as rent and was doing business of retail sale from a shop and his business was not flourishing hence he intended to shift to Agra. On behalf of third landlord-Rajeev Kumar it was stated that his family consisted of himself his wife, old mother, two sons and two married daughters and four married sisters and on the second floor of the accommodation in dispute he had three rooms and on the first floor he had two rooms which were not sufficient for him.
(3.) IN my opinion there is absolutely no error in the finding of bona fide need and comparative hardship recorded by both the Courts below. Vipin Behari must have retired by now and either he must have left the accommoda tion provided to him by his employer or his employer must be compelling him to vacate the said accommodation. Raj Behari stated that he was paying exor bitant rent at Aligarh i. e. , Rs. 3,700/- per month and his business was not flour ishing there hence he intended to shift to Agra. His version was found to be cor rect by both the Courts below. Accordingly, the need of these two brothers is more than genuine. Learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner has vehemently argued that according to the allegations made in the release application, rent of first floor accommodation in tenancy occupation of the tenant consisting of four rooms was being realised by Banke Behari and rent of the ground floor accommodation was being realised by Rajeev Kumar, hence ground floor accommodation could not be released as Courts below found the need of sons of Banke Behari to be bona fide and not of Rajeev Kumar.;