- (1.) The instant petition is directed against the concurrent findings of bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded by the Prescribed Authority and Appellate court in favour of the respondent-landlord in proceedings arising out of an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act').
(2.) The need set up in the release application is as follows:- It is alleged that Late Lala Babu Ram Rastogi, grandfather of the respondent-landlord divided joint family properties by way of mutual family settlement. Subsequently, certain differences cropped up amongst the family members, resulting in institution of Original Suit No.398 of 1981. In the said suit, one Sri Anand Swaroop Dubhish was appointed as sole arbitrator by mutual consent of the parties and he gave award on 12.12.1984 partitioning the joint family properties. It was made Rule of the Court on 15.12.1984. Thereunder, the respondent-landlord got flat no.9 (in dispute in the instant petition), flat no.19 and three servant quarters. The said fact was duly intimated to the tenants. The petitioners, who are tenants of flat no.9, attorned in favour of the respondent-landlord. His father Ram Lakhan Rastogi got 1/3rd portion of ancestral house no.74/142 Dhankutti, Kanpur. The respondent-landlord is in possession of two rooms, which have fallen to the share of his father in the said ancestral house measuring 16" x 12" and 12" x 12". His family comprises of himself, his wife, son Ritvik Rastogi aged about 22 years and daughter Kanupriya Rastogi aged about 15 years. It is also asserted that the relationship of his wife with his mother is not cordial, which is disturbing the family peace. The divorced sister of the landlord has also started residing in the ancestral house. The father of the landlord is asking him to make alternative arragement. The landlord is a mechanical engineer having consultancy business and because of paucity of accommodation, he is also not having any office. His son is of marriageable age and would be married in near future. He consequently requires three bedrooms, one for himself, another for his son and third for his daughter, apart from drawing room, dining room, guest room, one room for his office, a servant quarter and a garage. The accommodation in possession of the petitioner-tenants comprises of five rooms, store, verandah, kitchen, latrine, bathroom apart from garage and one servant quarter. It is urgently required by him to fulfill his residential need and that of his family, as he has no other suitable accommodation.
(3.) The release application was contested by the petitioners contending that the award given by the arbitrator is null and void. The alleged partition is contrary to legal provisions. The accommodation in possession of the respondent-landlord in ancestral house is more than sufficient.;