K. C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Banda, dated 13-7-73 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
(2.) SMT. Kailash Devi, who is the wife of Mukat Behari Lal, is the owner of a house No. 329/1, Govind Ashram, Civil Lines, Banda. She got the said house by means of a registered gift deed dated August 8, 1947, executed by her mother SMT. Ram Piari and her brother Jairaj Behari Lal. Mukat Behari Lal had a son Mahabir Bali from his first wife. Mahabir Bali as well as his first wife died sometime back, Mahabir Bali, however, left behind his widow SMT. Madhuri Devi and a daughter Km. Reeta. Smt. Kailash Devi, respondent No. 3, filed an application before the Prescribed Authority for release of the accommodation on the ground that she needed the accommodation in dispute in possession of the petitioner for occupation by her daughter-in-law and grandfather. She alleged that these persons were previously living outside Banda but since were proposing to come to Banda, the premises in dispute was required for them. The application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the same was not maintainable as neither Smt. Madhuri Devi nor Km. Reeta could be treated as members of the family of Smt. Kailash Devi, respondent No. 3.
(3.) THE application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed. Aggrieved by these two judgments, Ram Sanehi Lal, the tenant, filed the present writ petition. The first question that arises for decision in this writ petition is about the maintainability of the application under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Act. An application under this provision can be filed by a landlord for his or her need or for the need of his or her family member or members. In the instant case, the application filed by respondent no. 3 was neither allowed by the Prescribed Authority nor by the District Judge on the ground that the portion in dispute was not required by the respondent no. 3 for occupation by herself. It was allowed for the need of Smt. Madhuri Devi and Km. Reeta. The respondent no. 3 could file an application for the need of the aforesaid two ladies provided that they were the members of her family.;