R.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Nainital, dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the prescribed authority allowing the application of the landlord, respondent No. 3, for the release of the accommodation in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Brief facts of the case are that Ram Lal, respondent No. 2, filed an application for the release of the disputed accommodation i.e. 1/9, Subzi Mandi, 'Rudrapur, District Nainital on the ground that the same is needed for enabling his unemployed son Man Mohan, who has completed technical training of Radio and Television Mechanic after completing his studies, for settling him in an independent business and that there was no other accommodation available with the landlord where his unemployed son Man Mohan could start his business and the landlord having a big family, was not able to meet the expenses of his family, and hence his need for settling his unemployed son in business was bona fide and genuine and greater hardship would be caused if the accommodation is not released in his favour.
(2.) THE application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and genuine and that the landlord, besides the disputed accommodation, has another accommodation D -17, Hari Mandir Road, in the same town, in a portion of which one Harnam Singh was the tenant who had vacated the same and which is available to the landlord for settling his son in business and further that the petitioner being a practising doctor would suffer greater hare ship if he is evicted from the disputed accommodation. The Prescribed Authority, on a consideration of the entire material on the record, came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord to settle his own unemployed son Man Mohan in business was genuine and pressing and he had no other accommodation available where Man Mohan could carry on his business and that the accommodation on Hari Mandir Road was not available for starting his business. It was also held that the accommodation on Hari Mandir Road was jointly owned by several co -sharers and hence the same was also not available as an alternative accommodation to the landlord. The Prescribed Authority further held that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord if the disputed accommodation is not released in his favour and on these findings allowed the application.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner went up in -appeal before the Additional District Judge, Nainital who affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11511 of 1983. This court upheld the finding of the Additional District Judge on the question of bona fide need and held that under the circumstances, the inference drawn by the courts below that the need of the landlord to settle Man Mohan in independent business is bona fide seems to be perfectly correct and calls for no interference by this court but held that the Additional District Judge has not addressed himself to the aspect whether Harnam Singh had vacated the accommodation occupied by him as a tenant in house No. D -17, Hari Mandir Road and hence remanded the case to the Additional District Judge to decide the question whether Harnam Singh had vacated the said accommodation or not and whether the need of the landlord would be satisfied by that accommodation. It further directed that in view of the fact that it is asserted that the petitioner has shifted to his own residential accommodation at Indira Nagar Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Rudrapur where he is residing and is also carrying on his practice as a Doctor, the Additional District Judge should decide this aspect of the case also.;