R.P.Singh - (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed quashing of an order passed by the Xllth Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 24th December, 1989 upholding the order passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the application of the landlady respondent no. 3 for the release of the disputed accommodation in proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 here-in-after referred to as the Act.
(2.) THE petitioner is the tenant of the disputed accommodation house no. 416 Old Katra, Allahabad of which the respondent no. 3 Smt. Savitri Devi is the landlady. Respondent no. 3 the landlady filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act inter alia on the ground that her family has grown resulting in need for additional accommodation and that her daughter-in- law is of quarrel some nature due to which strained relation between the petitioner and her daughter-in-law has completely disturbed the mental peace of the members of the family and it has become necessary to provide a separate accommodation to her son and daughter-in-law and hence the petitioner's need for the disputed accommodation house no. 416 Old Katra Allahabad is bonafide and genuine and further that greater hardship would be caused if the accommodation is not released in her favour. THE application moved by the landlady was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide and genuine and that the tenanted house no. 336 Old Katra Allahabad in which the landlady is residing, is sufficient for the residence of the landlady and her family members and that greater hardship would be caused to the petitioner in case the release application is allowed. The Prescribed Authority on consideration of the evidence on record held that house no. 336 Old Katra Allahabad in which the landlady was residing as a tenant, was not sufficient for her family which consists of the landlady, her husband, one married son along with the daughter-in-law, one unmarried son apart from one unmarried daughter who is living along with the landlady and since there are in all three rooms in the disputed house which is not sufficient for the members of the family of the landlady and hence her need for the disputed accommodation is bonafide and genuine specially in view of the fact that the relationship of the landlady with her daughter-in-law is very strained and it has become necessary to provide her with a separate accommodation for her daughter-in-law and her son in order to maintain mental peace in the family. The Prescribed Authority further held that greater hardship would be caused if the accommodation in dispute is not released in favour of the landlady. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge who, however, observing that the Prescribed Authority has not recorded any finding that the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation was bonafide and genuine, allowed the appeal without further applying his mind to the comparative hardship of the parties vide his order dated 31-10-87. Feeling aggrieved the landlady filed a writ petition before this Court which was allowed by this court holding that the Prescribed Authority had applied his mind to the question of bonafide need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation and held that her need for the said accommodation was bonafide and genuine specially in view of the strained relations with her daughter-in-law which has necessitated to arrange for a separate accommodation for her daughter-in-law so that the family may live in peace and hence Additional District Judge has committed manifest error in holding that the Prescribed Authority has not applied his mind and has not recorded a finding on the question of bonafide need. Consequently, the order passed by the Additional District Judge was quashed and the case was remanded back to him to decide the case afresh applying his mind to the question of comparative hardship in accordance with law. On remand of the case, the Additional District Judge on appraisal of the evidence on record held that the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation was bonafide and genuine and that greater hardship would be caused to her in case the application for release is not allowed and after recording these findings dismissed the appeal. It is this order which is in challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) HEARD Sri S. K. Mehrotra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Radhey Shyam Dwivedi learned Counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional District Judge respondent no. 1 has not properly considered the question of comparative hardship and hence the finding recorded on the question of comparative hardship is liable to be set aside. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are three rooms in the disputed accommodation in the house no. 416 Old Katra Allahabad and the Additional District Judge has not considered the question of part release of the accommodation as contemplated by clause (d) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act, and it was incumbent on the Additional District Judge to consider whether the tenant's need would be adequately met by leaving with him a part of the building under tenancy and the landlord's need would be served by releasing the other part but the Additional District Judge has not applied his mind to this aspect of the case.;