SATISH CHANDRA,J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 3 Smt. Santosh Kumari was the owner of house No. 8, Supentine Road, Bareilly Cantt. She appears to have purchased this house by a sale deed dated August 7, 1966. She retained a few rooms in her possession and let out the rest of it to two tenants, Subedar Balwant Singh and Captain Roshanlal Jetlay. In March 1976, she applied for release of the two rooms under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act on the ground under that her husband was in the State Police Service. He was Deputy Superintendent of Police posted at Etah. He was due to retire on August 31, 1976. She along with her husband and children desired to live in their own house at Bareilly after retirement.
(2.) THE tenants contested the application. The Prescribed Autho­rity, however, relying on sub-section (iv) (1-A) of Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 1972, granted the application and directed the evic­tion of the tenants. The tenants went up in appeal but failed. They have now come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitutiotn. The lower appellate court held that it was established that the owner's husband was in the police service. He retired in 1976. Till his retirement, he was in occupation of government residence at Jtitah. It was also observed: "It is also not denied that cessation of service of the husband of the landlady will have the same effect as the cessation of ser­vice of the landlady."
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the landlady was entitled to the benrat of sub-section, (iv) (1-A). Under it the courts were not permitted to look into the comparative needs of the landlord and the tenant. On this view the sppeal filed by the tenants was dismissed.;