Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent.
(2.) THIS is a landlord's petition against an order passed by the appellate authority dated 2.8.1996. The facts of the case are that the landlord's family is a growing family and has about 21 members. Originally the landlord's family was living at a place situate at 50/157 Naughara Kanpur Nagar which was ancestral house of the petitioners. The petitioners were residing on the first floor of the house as the ground floor of this house was commercial and was occupied by several tenants. On account of their pressing need on account of their large and growing family, the petitioners purchased house No. 74/225 Dhankutti, Kanpur Nagar, as additional accommodation to accommodate their growing family. They pur chased this house at Dhankutti on 10.8.1981. The house at Dhankutt is built on a plot of land measured 16 x 9 meters on an area of 144 sq. meters and the entire house according to the petitioners was occupied by 16 tenants. The landlords moved an application for the release of the premises in dispute on 24.9.1985. The respondent tenant has in his use two rooms one on the first floor and one on the second floor. The petitioners landlords have moved application for release of the other tenanted portion also and two accommoda tions, one in the house of Sri P.N. Awasthi was vacated on 17.4.1982 and an other portion in the use of Suresh Chandra Gupta was vacated on 20.3.1983. Once these portions were vacated the landlords' family moved into these two portions. However it is the landlord's case that they required more and addi tional accommodation to adjust their large and growing family. Presently as stated earlier, the family members of the landlord family are 21 in number. The case of the petitioners landlord is that the respondent tenant was a Government servant and could very well have got Government accommodation. But this argument is now over because the respondent tenant has retired. The release application filed by the petitioners was allowed by the prescribed au thority by his judgment and order dated 30.7.1992 by recording a finding in favour of the landlord that the landlord has a bona fide need to adjust his large and growing family and he has no other accommodation available with him to locate his family. During the course of hearing before the prescribed au thority the respondent tenant sought to bring on record the evidence to show that the petitioners landlord had other accommodation at Ramganj Kanpur Nagar, Naughara Kanpur Nagar, Jhakarkatti Kanpur Nagar and also that a portion was released by one Shiv Kant Agnihotri and also by Shiv Poojan. With regard to this evidence the prescribed authority came to the conclusion that these properties were not residential accommodations and could not be used for residential purposes in respect of Shiv Kant Agnihotri and Shiv Poojan also prescribed authority held that they were never tenants of the premises in dispute.
(3.) THE appellate authority has reversed the finding of the prescribed au thority but has not given any reason for doing so and in fact has held that the petitioner landlord concealed that he has additional accommodation. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that the matter needs reconsideration by the appellate authority. The matter is remanded back to the appellate au thority for fresh consideration specially with regard to the additional accommodation which he has said, is in the occupation of the landlord. The appel late authority will hear the matter on merit afresh and decide the same within a period of three months after giving both the sides opportunity of hearing. Three months will begin to run from the date on which a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.;