- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. The present petitioner Lallu, son of Sri Baldeo, is the owner of House No. 1191501 D-8 Darshanpurwa, Kalpi Road, Kanpur. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing in one room 12' x 8' and a Verandah 12' x 8' on the ground floor of the said house. Respondent No. 3 (Chandra Shekhar) is the tenant of other portion of the ground floor of the same measurement. The petitioner's said build ing has certain! accommodation on first floor and second floor.
(2.) PETITIONER filed an application under Section 2jl (l) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. No. 13 of 1972) for short jelled the Act, for seeking release of the accommodation in the tenancy of respondent No. 3. Admittedly the family members of the petitioner com prise himself, his wife, his mother, 3 sons (one having been married) and unmarried daughter (at the time of filing of the release application in the year 1976 ). The said application (registered as case No. 78 of 1976 in the Court of the Prescribed Authority Annexure-1 to the writ peti tion), was rejected vide judgment and order dated 17th March, 1980 (Annexure IV to the writ petition ). The Prescribed Authority took note of the fact that landlord/petitioner was letting out and al lowing other persons to occupy of the ac commodation which has become available to him at the relevant time on first and second floor of his building. The Prescribed Authority was, however, pleased to observe that it was open to the applicant/landlord to file fresh release ap plication in case he could make offer to respondent No. 3 for occupying the ac commodation of first or second floor of his building. The Prescribed Authority, how ever, has accepted the case of the landlord that the accommodation, which came in his possession on first or second floor of the building, was not suitable for his old mother who could not be asked to lie in the said room. A perusal of the order of the Prescribed Authority shows that it had messed the two issues, concerning 'bona fide need' and 'comparative hardships. Feeling aggrieved, landlord filed an appeal being Appeal No. 150 of 1980 before the District Judge, Kanpur which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated September21,1981. Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner is present. None appears on behalf of respondent even though list has been revised.
(3.) I have perused the impugned or ders dated 17-3-1980 and September 21, 1981 (Annexures 4 and 11 to the writ peti tion) as well as counter and rejoinder af fidavits. The learned District Judge in its judgment dated 21-9-1981 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) has disagreed with the Prescribed Authority on the question of 'bona fide need' of the landlord. The appellate Authority has observed:, "this is evi dently short of the normal requirement of the family and the contention of the appel lant that he needs more space for residen tial purpose cannot be discarded in my view as dishonest. ";