Murlidhar, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order in proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) THE Petitioner is owner of a flourishing industrial concern 'Haldwani Furniture Mart' and the disputed premises are admittedly used for housing the employees of the said concern. The parties differ about the number, while according to the landlords only 4 employees had been living there, according to the Petitioner 16 employees are staying. The residence facility has been provided to these employees under the provisions of the Factories Act and the rules. The material fact, however, is that the landlord's own house in Haldwani was gutted by fire and since then they had been living in some other house under a temporary arrangement. They moved an application under Section 21 of the Act on the ground of personal need. The Prescribed Authority found in their favour both on the question of bonafide requirement and comparison of hardship. The appellate authority per its order dated 31st August, 1977 (Annexure 4 to the petition) has confirmed these findings. These are the orders impugned by this petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon Rule 16(e) of the rules framed under the Act and contended that the authorities below were bound to consider the availability of alternative accommodation. The said provision runs as follows: 16. Application for release on the ground of personal requirement: (e) Where there are a number of tenants separately occupying a block of tenements and the landlord desires their eviction on ground of his personal need the Prescribed Authority shall consider whether suitable alternative accommodation is likely to be available to such tenants.
(3.) THE object of the rule appears to be to call for extra caution before' passing orders for eviction of a set of tenants occupying the same building even though the need of the landlord may be genuine and even though his hardship may be regarded as quite acute. Inasmuch as the hardship on the tenant's side in case of multiple tenants get compounded by the addition of individual hardship of each tenant. This rule imposes the duty to specifically consider whether alternative accommodation would or would not be available for otherwise a number of persons would be thrown out to satisfy the need of one person which cannot be said to be in consonance with social justice. I am, however, satisfied that there is no scope for the application of this rule in the present case. This can apply only where there are a number of tenants in the same premises and all the tenants are sought to be evicted. The present is a case of a single tenancy. The persons residing in the premises or using the same as employees of the Petitioner occupy it on behalf of the Petitioner tenant and cannot be regarded as ' tenants separately occupying a block of tenements This argument cannot, therefore, be of any help to the Petitioner.;