- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the appellate authority dated 1-12-1998 allowing the appeal and releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 3 under S. 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act).
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 3 purchased a portion of House No. 106/380-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur Nagar on 26-8-1985 of which the petitioners are tenants of a portion on the ground floor. Respondent No. 3 filed an application for release on 2-9-1993 alleging that his family consists of himself, his wife, three sons and one daughter. He is residing on the first floor and second floor. On the first floor he has got one room and on second floor he has got one room but on the ground floor his son has a shop carrying on business. The accommodation for him for residential purpose is insufficient. It was further stated that petitioner No. 1 was residing in Rae Bareilly as he was working as a teacher there. This application was contested by the petitioners alleging that the accommodation is more than sufficient in possession of the landlord-respondent. He has two rooms one on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor and such accommodation is more than sufficient for his need. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on 31-8-1996. Respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal. The appellate authority has allowed the appeal on 1-12-1998 releasing the accommodation in favour of respondent No. 3. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. C. Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent.;