- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Heard parties Coun sel.
(2.) THIS is tenants' writ petition directed against the order dated 5-9-1983 passed by Respondent No. 1, whereby the appeal filed by the landlord was allowed. The dispute relates to a residential house which was in the tenancy of the petitioners' father and another tenant Ram Chander. The accommodation which was in occupation of Luxman Singh, the father of the petitioners, consisted of two rooms and one Kitchen in the ground floor whjle the accommodation in possession of another tenant Ram Chander consisted of one room and one Tin-shed in the first floor. The landlord filed an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the entire house which was in occupation of the aforesaid two tenants on the ground that since a partition has taken place amongst the co-sharers of the joint family and the house in question having fallen in the exclusive share of the landlords, they have no other accommodation to reside as of right. The release application was con tested by both the tenants and it was pleaded that partition was false and the landlords have sufficient accommodation with them and their requirement of the house in question was not bonafide. The Prescribed Authority rejected the landlord's application holding that there was no documentary evidence on the record to prove the alleged partition and since the landlords were living with other co- sharers in an another house having suf ficient accommodation, their need for the house in question was not bonafide. Find ing on the question of comparative hardship was also recorded in favour of the tenants.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the landlords filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. Before the Appellate Authority, the landlords with the permission of the Ap pellate Authority brought on record docu ments in support of their case of partition, which included certified copy of the decree of civil suit by which the partition amongst the co-sharers was recognized and declared. The landlords also brought on record documentary proof in relation to a subsequent event that the father of the petitioners-namely-Luxman Singh, after the decision of the Prescribed Authority, purchased another house in the same city and, therefore, no objection of the tenants could be entertained. The Appellate Authority on a con sideration of entire material on record has recorded a categorical finding that the need of the landlord for the release of the house in question is bond fide. There ap pears to be no error in the said finding inasmuch as after when the partition had taken place, the present landlords were left with no rights in other joint family properties including the ancestral house and only the house in question fell into their share. The mere fact that they con tinued their living in ancestral house can not deprive them of their right to ask for the house in question for their own per sonal living specially when they were left with no rights in the ancestral house on account of the partition. It is not the re quirement of law that before applying for release a landlord should first come on streets. The occupation of the landlords in the ancestral house after the partition would only be in the capacity of licensee and they could not be compelled to con tinue to live there against the wishes of other co-sharers.;