- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. This is tenant's chal lenging the judgment and order dated 27-7-1994 passed by the then 2nd Additional District Judge, Meerut allowing the ap peal preferred by landlord- respondent against the judgment and order dated 18-2-1992 of the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) THE disputes relates to a portion of house No. 384 situated in Kabari Bazar, Teli Mohalla Sadar, Meerut which com prised of two small rooms measuring 4' x 8' each with common latrine and bathroom. THE said accommodation is in the ground floor and is admittedly in the tenancy of the petitioner since 1970. THE landlord-respondent moved an application under Scction21 (l) (a)of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') for the release of the accommodation in question on the ground that in order to cater the requirement of his family mem bers, he needed additional accommoda tion. In the application it was stated that his family consisted of his wife and two minor children. It was however, also stated that the father and mother of the landlord were also residing with him. During the pendency of application the landlord fur ther claimed that his grand- mother Smt. Parvati Devi has also started living with him and his requirement of additional ac commodation has further increased. THE landlord further alleged that since the tenant has built his own house on a piece of land purchased in the year 1986, he would suffer no hardship as he could shift there without any inconvenience. He also pleaded that the said house was situated in Mohalla Kasampur Nagala Karhi which is in Meerut Urban Agglomeration. In short the landlord's case was that on account of construction of house by the tenant, the Explanation 1 of 4th proviso of Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act was attracted, accord ingly the tenant could not be heard in opposition to the application of the landlord moved under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act. The release application was con tested by the tenant inter alia on a number of grounds, one of the ground being that during the pendency of release applica tion, the landlord has come in occupation of two big rooms having sizes of 18' x 12' and 12'x20'which were vacated by another tenant Sri J. M. Ghosh with whom the landlord entered into a compromise and got the same released in his favour by the order dated 26-11-1990 and also got pos session of the same on 31-3-1991. As regards the applicability of Explanation 1 to the proviso of Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act, the case of the tenant was that he has not constructed any house as alleged by the landlord. Out of love and affection the father of his wife has got constructed three small rooms in his wife's name but they are not vacant and are occupied by three tenants. He also specifically denied that the said construction laid within the Meerut city or Municipal limits of Meerut. The parties led evidence and also filed some documents. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 18-2-1992 came to the conclusion that Explanation 1 of 4th Proviso of Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act was applicable, hence tenant could not be heard on the question of comparison of hardship. The Prescribed Authority fur ther observed that even if Explanation was applicable the landlord was still required to prove his bona fide need and after assess ing the evidence on the said question the Prescribed Authority recorded a specific finding that since the landlord has come in occupation of more accommodation than as was asked for in the release application on account of cessation of occupation by J. M. Ghosh, the alleged need of the landlord of the accommodation in ques tion stood satisfied. The Prescribed Authority further recorded a finding that there was no direct and clinching evidence that the landlord's father and mother were also living with him. It further held that assuming 'he said assertion to be correct, the accommodation which was presently in occupation of the landlord was suffi cient to cater his requirement.
(3.) THE appellate authority affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority regarding the applicability of Explanation 1 merely on the basis that the said finding of the Prescribed Authority has not been challenged by the tenant by way of appeal. THE lower appellate authority has how ever, reversed the finding of ihe Prescribed Authority on the question of bond fide need holding that the trial Court has not considered the requirement of the landlord's father, mother and grand mother who are proved to be living with the landlord, and if their need was taken into account, the claim of the landlord for additional accommodation was not ex hausted despite release of accommodation in his favour, which was hitherto in occupation of J. M. Ghosh. In other words, the lower Appellate Court came lo the conclusion that even after corning into occupation of the two rooms vacated by J. M. Ghosh the need of the landlord for additional accommodation did not stand satisfied and his need for accommodation in question was bona fide. With these find ings the release application of the landlord has been allowed by the impugned order which has been challenged in this writ petition before this Court by the tenant. I have heard Sri Pramod Jain learned Counsel for the tenant- petitioner and Sri VK. Goel, learned Counsel for the landlord- respondent at length. Record has also been perused.;