- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 30-5-1997 passed by respondent No. 1 al lowing the appeal and releasing the dis puted accommodation in favour of the landlord respondent under Section 21 (l) (a) of UP. Urban Buildings (Regula tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act ).
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respon dent No. 2 purchased the disputed house by registered sale-deed from its erstwhile owner Dharam Raj on 6-9-1984. He filed an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act on 22-8-1988 before the Prescribed Authority stating that Jagannath Singh was the tenant of a ground floor portion of the house in dispute. After his death, it was inherited by his widow Smt. Ramraji, his son Anil Kumar and his daughter Km. Saroj. THE tenant had sub-let it to one Munna Lal Yadav. It was alleged that he is an Advocate and requires the disputed accommodation for his chambers for professional purposes. He had to take on rent House No. 109/401, Nehru Nagar, Kanpur for his chambers. THE landlord of the said house is pressing to vacate the same and it is also convenient for him to have his chambers in the house in which he is residing on the first floor. THE applica tion was contested by the petitioners. It was stated that the landlord has got two other accommodation situate on the first floor but that was not disclosed in the application filed by the landlord-respon dent. One Hasha Nand was a tenant. He vacated the accommodation on 23-8-1986 and during the pendency of the case, one Arjun Deo vacated the accommodation in his tenancy in the same house and those 3. THE Prescribed Authority rejected the application on 11-12-1991. Respon dent No. 2 filed an appeal and the appellate authority has allowed the appeal vide the impugned order dated 30-5-1997 on the finding that respondent No. 2 requires the disputed accommodation in question for his personal need. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Prescribed Authority had recorded specific finding that the accommodation vacated by two tenants, namely, Arjun Deo and Hasha Nand was occupied by the landlord and, therefore, the need of the landlord was not bonafide. He has placed reliance upon the decision Daya Kishan Pandey v. Second Additional District Judge, Nainital Camp at Haldwani and others, 1996 (27) ALR 1, wherein it was held that if the Prescribed Authority has given a finding that the son of the landlord can start his business in one shop and unless the finding is reversed by the appellate authority, he could not allow the application, filed by the landlord. In Smt. Jagmag Devi and others v. VIIIth Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahr and others, 1993 (1) ARC 557, it has been held that if the trial Court has recorded a finding and unless that finding is reversed, the revision could not be allowed by the revisional court. In the present case, it is not disputed that Arjun Deo and Hasha Nand had va cated the house but those accommodation were on the first floor. THE contention of the landlord was that he required the ground floor accommodation and the mere fact that the other tenants had va cated first floor, was hardly relevant. THE landlord has offered the accommodation on the first floor to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners fur ther contended that one Gyan Prakash was a tenant of a portion situate on the ground floor. It has been declared as vacant. Gyan Prakash has filed Writ Petition No. 5980 of 1992 and against the order declaring vacancy, this Court has stated the operation of the order declaring vacancy. Secondly even if it is held that there was. vacancy, still the question will arise as regards to this release of the said accom modation. THE landlord has offered first floor accommodation to the petitioners. THE petitioners, in para 10 of the writ petition, have stated that their family con sists of six members and in a non-residen tial portion, petitioner No. 3 is doing con tract business. Admittedly Jagannath Singh was a tenant of the disputed premises. H6 died leaving behind him, his widow and one son Anil Kumar (petitioner Nq. l) and one daughter Km. Saroj (petitjoner No. 2 ). Smt. Ramraji, widow of Jagannath Singh died, Km. Saroj, petitioner No. 2 has since been married. Anil Kumar petitioner No. 1 is unmarried. 6. THEre is a dispute as to whether Munna Lal Yadav was also tenant. THE contention Of the petitioner No. 3 is that he is also a tenant. THE appellate authority has recorded a finding that Munna Lal petitioner No. 3 had purchased Plot No. 112-21 from Kanpur Development Authority and lease deed has already been executed of 23-1-1982. He got the build ing plan sanctioned in the year 1988 and constructed; house in the year 1989. In that house there are four rooms, kitchen, latrine and bath-room. THE said accom modation is vacant to accommodate petitioner No. 3. 7. As regards petitioner No. 1, he is yet unmarried. THE landlord offered a por tion of the first floor to him. Both the parties have given the offer. I have given my serious, consideration about it. THE tenant has got three rooms in his occupa tion. THE first portion of accommodation is alleged to be a shop. He indicated that he will vacate the first room provided the landlord gives some portion on the back portion shown by tin-shed and kitchen in the supplementary map filed today by Anil Kumar. THE second offer was that he may be given the accommodation of three rooms on- the first floor which I have marked as ABCD. Respondent No. 2 has not accepted this offer. As regards the ground floor portion, it is stated that one room on the first floor will not be enough. As regards; the first floor portion shown by letters AHCD, the same is in his occupa tion. He Has re-modelled and resides in it. THE landlord has given an offer in respect of rooms EFGH along with passage WC etc. marked by letters IJKL. the claim of respondent No. 2 is, in fact, in regard to the ground floor portion for his chambers pur poses. It is, therefore, appropriate that the tenant vacates the ground floor portion on the first floor portion, ABCD has been remodelled by the landlord and is residing therein. THE tenant has been offered only one room, passage and bathroom etc. THEre is an adjoining room on the first floor and size is 5. 52/3. 18 which I have shown by letters MNOP. If the petitioner No. l is given one room shown by letters MNOP, that will satisfy his needs, con sidering that he is living alone in the family accommodation and this set will be suffi cient for him. THEse letters have been marked by me in the map filed today by Anil Kumar. 8. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. THE tenant shall vacate the disputed accommodation provided the petitioner gives vacant possession of the first floor accommodation marked by me by letters (sic) MNOP and IJKL. Respon dent No. 2 shall give a notice to him. On giving such a notice, the tenant shall va cate the disputed accommodation within one month and will handover the disputed accommodation to the landlord-respon dent. If there is any dispute in regard to the exchange of the accommodation, an ap plication can be filed before the Prescribed Authority, who will execute the order in accordance with the observations and directions given by me. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs THE rent of the accommodation will be same which is being paid by the tenant at present. Petition partly allowed. .;