B.L.LOOMBA, J. - (1.) THIS is a landlord-tenant dispute relating to House No. 78/69 New Ganeshganj, Lucknow. Ram Mohan Lal Srivastava (since dead) was the owner-landlord of this house. He filed petition under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, in the year 1972 against Tilak Raj (since dead) and Prabhu Dayal (since dead) tenants in the house, seeking release of the house on the ground that the same was needed bonafide for occupation by himself and members of his family. It is unfortunate and highly regrettable that the litigation has taken so long a time and the dispute is now taken up for consideration and decision by this Court after over 16 years.
(2.) PETITIONER 1 to 5 are legal representatives of late Tilak Raj and are in occupation of the accommodation at the ground floor consisting of three rooms, kitchen and toilet etc. Petitioners 6 (since dead) and 7 to 10 are heirs and legal representatives of Late Prabhu Dayal and are in occupation of the accommodation at the first floor consisting of three rooms, kitchen and toilet etc. Respondent No. 3 is son of Late Ram Mohan Lal Srivastava and respondent No. 4 is his sister. Ram Mohan Srivastava and thereafter his son Harbans Rai respondent No. 3 has been living with his family in a rented house in the same area situate at a distance of about 50 yards from the house in dispute. The Prescribed Authority decided the petition for release of the house on 12.8.86 (after about 14 years). Release application of the landlord was rejected on the ground that the landlord was comfortably settled in the rented house which has accommodation of two rooms, in the sizes of 14'x8' and 18'x14' with a small store, verandah, kitchen and toilet etc. and further he has a room at the ground floor of the disputed house in the size of 15'x12'. The landlord's appeal under Section 22 of the Act was allowed by Additional District Judge, Lucknow, by his judgment and order dated 10.2.89 (Annexure-13). The learned Additional District Judge took into consideration the developments subsequent to the filing of the release application, both in relation to the landlord and the two sets of tenants and came to the conclusion that need of landlord (respondent No. 3 Harbans Rai) for the house in question was bonafide and genuine. He did not agree with the approach of the Prescribed Authority that the ground floor room in the house in question combined with the rented accommodation already with landlord was sufficient to meet the requirements of family. As to the second set of tenants, namely, respondents 6 to 10 it was found that respondent No. 6 Smt. Angoori had died and respondent No. 8 Radha Kishan, (one of the brothers) had already acquired middle income group House No. 180/1 Tikait Rai Talab Colony, Lucknow and that this second set of tenant i.e. respondents 7 to 10 can easily shift to that house. First set of tenants i.e. petitioners 1 to 5 (of this writ petition) can be allotted the accommodation which may be vacated by the landlord. Accordingly, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the release application and directed that the accommodation to be vacated by the landlord may be considered for allotment in favour of first set of tenants (petitioners 1 to 5) on preferential basis.
(3.) THE petitioners have assailed the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge on the grounds - (i) that the need of the landlord for release of the accommodation ought to have been considered as set up originally in the release application; (ii) it was not open to the appellate authority to make reappraisal of the evidence so as to change the very basis on which the release application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and that no proper evaluation of the comparable hardship of the parties has been done by the appellate authority. It is also submitted that the factor relating to the status of the landlord ought not to have been taken into account by the appellate authority, and (iii) finally, that arrangement suggested in the order of the appellate authority for first set of tenant (petitioners 1 to 5) is of no consequence because the accommodation to be vacated by the landlord may not be allotted in their favour. ;