U.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 5th July, 1977 passed by the court of the District Judge dismissing the tenants' appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 21st February, 1977 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application of the landlord under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The case of the petitioners is that originally. Tarkeshwar Singh, Advocate, father-in law of petitioner No. 1, and husband of petitioner No. 2 and father of petitioner No. 3 was the tenant of the premises in dispute which he took on rent in the year 1932 on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- it was further alleged that after his death his son Brij Kishore who was an advocate, and his widow Smt. Janki Devi succeeded him and during the life time of Brij Kishore Singh, opposite party No. 3, landlord, filed an application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that at this old age he has got six children aged 3 to 18 years and he requires the accommodation in dispute for his bona fide need the accommodation and his disposal being short of his requirement while the opposite parties have got no need of the disputed portion of the house as they have already got a double pucca storey house in the village where opposite party No. 2 generally resides. It was further alleged that Brij Kishore Singh carried on business of vegetables at Raj Nahal (Bihar) and has built a Pakka house there to look after his business, his another son is an Engineer posted at Bukare and the third son is taking education as Engineer at Banaras, and he has got some land at Sonpura where he generally resides during Mela season and they have also purchased some 3-4 Kathas land also in the city of Ballia. The application was contested by the tenant who filed a written statement disputing that the landlord has got bona fide need and according to him the portion in the possession of the landlord was sufficient for his need. The landlord filed an affidavit in support of his release application and a supplementary affidavit in which he also stated that it would not be possible for him to reside in the first floor and the ground floor is also required for keeping a cow which is very necessary. Brij Kishore Singh died during the pendency of proceedings before the Prescribed Authority and that is why his heirs were impleaded as parties to the proceedings out of them two have not filed writ petition and have been impleaded as opposite parties 4 and 5 to the writ petition. The Prescribed Authority held that the one of Brij Kishore Singh were residing outside Ballia and the third son Has getting education in law at Chhapra and was also residing at present at Ballia and was also looking after and managing the Property of his father which was in various villages. He Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the needs of the landlord were bona fide and after comparing the needs of the landlord and tenant come to the conclusion that the comparative need of the landlord, who was in possession of portion of the building in which he too was residing is far exceeded than that of the tenant.
(2.) The learned counsel referred to the affidavit of Har Nandan Rai, dated 21st February, 1977, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Learned counsel contended that the said affidavit will show that the landlord wanted the premises in dispute for the purposes of keeping a cow which could not be ground for throwing out the tenant. The submission made by the learned counsel is not tenable as the needs of the landlord were specified by him in his application for release, copy of which is Annexed-I to the writ petition. Annexure-2 is nothing, but a supplementary affidavit in which the landlord stated that in the ground floor the cow will also be kept. It is thus not correct to state that this was the only ground for getting the premises released in his favour. It was next contended by the learned counsel that third son Dinesh Singh son or Late Shri Brij Kishore Singh has started practice and the District Judge has recorded a conjectural finding that the second son will get job somewhere else. Such a finding could not have been made basis of releasing the premises in favour of the landlord. In para 11 of the counter-affidavit it was stated that the third son Kamlesh was an Engineer at Bhilai. In the rejoinder affidavit this fact was not denied that the said son has now been able to get a job and is now an Engineer at Bhilai. In the counter-affidavit the petitioners' allegations were substantially admitted that Brij Kishore Singh had passed his LL.B. Examination, but he was not serious to the legal profession. It was next contended by Sri. S.N. Misra that the landlord has got enough accommodation at his disposal and be does not require the additional accommodation and as such the needs of the landlord and tenant have not been considered in right perspective. A perusal of the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge will show that notwithstanding that the disputed portion was a portion of building in which landlord also resides both of them have taken into consideration the accommodation at the disposal of the landlord and tenant and also their relative needs and have come to the conclusion that the landlord requires here accommodation and that is why the release application was granted. The finding which was recorded by the courts below does not suffer from any serious infirmity and no error of law has been committed by the authorities below in arriving at the said finding and the findings so recorded is based on evidence and is not conjectural. The Prescribed Authority and the District Judge have taken into consideration the accommodation at the disposal of the landlord and the tenant and also considered the professional work of Dinesh Singh who is said to have now joined legal profession, but no document has been filed to show that intact he has actually seriously started practice. The matter is thus concluded by finding of fact and the writ petition has got no force and is dismissed with costs.
(3.) Shri S.N. Misra prayed for six months' time to vacate the premises although it was objected by the opposite party but letter on the opposite party agreed to it. In this view the writ petition is dismissed with costs and the petitioners are granted six months' time to vacate the premises with effect from today. They will hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord within the period of six months and in case the same will not be done the release order will become executable. Petition dismissed.;