K.C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) This is a landlords writ petition filed against the judgment of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur dated December 2, 1975 dismissing an appeal filed by the landlord under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) The dispute relates to portion of house No. 108/113 situated in Mohalla Rambagh, district Kanpur. There were two portions in this house. One of them had been let out to respondent No. 3 for the purposes of a factory. The remaining portion was in occupation of the petitioners. An application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was filed by the landlord for release of the portion let out to respondent No. 3 on the ground that the same was required by the petitioners for their occupation. The petitioners alleged that there were a number of family members including a son who had also become an engineer and that a proper and suitable accommodation was needed for the family. The application was resisted by respondent No. 3. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of the petitioners was not genuine and rejected the same. In appeal taken by the petitioners to the appellate court, the judgment of the prescribed authority was upheld. Feeling aggrieved, the landlords have filed the present writ petition.
(3.) It is true, as emphasised by Sri S. P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the learned District Judge committed mistakes in giving the details of accommodation in possession of the petitioners, but the mistakes, committed by the appellate court, were of a trivial nature and they did not affect the judgment given by him. After perusal of the evidence the court below found, with which I agree, that the petitioner had sufficient accommodation at his disposal and that he did not require further accommodation for their residence.;