S.D.Agarwala - (1.) -This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE property in dispute is a first floor portion of premises no. 109/74, Nehru Nagar, Kanpur. Smt. Ram Pyari, wido.v of Sri Naunihal Bahadur, respondent no. 1, is the landlady of the said premises. Maharaj Bahadur Pradhan, the petitioner, is the tenant. It is not disputed that in a part of the house in dispute, the landlady is already residing with her sons and grand-children. The application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was made on the ground that additional accommodation was required for herself and for the members of her family, totalling 18. In the application, it was stated that the petitioner has got his own house at Farrukhabad. The petitioner has also constructed a house of his own (house no. 120/17, Lajpat Nagar, Kanpur), which has been given by the petitioner to his brother-in-law Sri K.B.L. Bhagoliwal as a licensee. It has been further stated that the petitioner had a house at Farrukhabad and since he has retired, he can shift to Farrukhabad for bis residence. It was also stated that the landlady did not have any other house in the city of Kanpur and, consequently, seeing the extent of the members of her family and their need, she imminently required additional accommodation for the residence of herself and the members of her family. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the need set up by the landlady and, consequently, by its judgment dated 26th November, 1982, the application was dismissed. Against the aforesaid decision dated 26th November, 1982, an appeal was filed under section 22 of the Act. The Appellate Authority, namely, the 5th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Prescribed Authority and further granted the application for release. 90 days' time was given to the petitioner to vacate the premises. This judgment was delivered on 9th January, 1986. Aggrieved by this judgment, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged firstly, that the lower appellate court has not considered the facts given in the application for amendment before the appellate authority and, as such, the finding recorded by the appellate authority in regard to the bona fide need is vitiated in law. In effect, the argument was that one son of the landlady Sri R. B. Chitre bad been transferred to Poona from Kanpur and his need, which was set up in the application under section 21 (1) (a) ceased to exist. It was also urged that one of the sons of the landlady, namely, Sri K. B. Saxena, had built a house in Meerut and he had shifted to Meerut after his retirement and, as such, the need of Sri K. B. Saxena also vanished.;