- (1.)BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner / tenant has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Prescribed Authority dated 30.07.1980 and 25.09.1981, under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), by which the release of the premises (portion of House No.223, Arya Nagar, Lucknow) was allowed.
(2.)ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner is the tenant in portion of the disputed premises jointly with portion occupied by the landlords / opposite party nos. 3 to 6.
(3.)THE opposite parties, some of whom have died during the pendency of the writ petition moved application under Section 21 of the Act on the ground of personal need. The following portion of the judgment of the learned Prescribed Authority deserves to be reproduced so as to appreciate the factual position of the disputed premises: -
"A Commission was issued for local inspection of the house in question which is on record. According to the Commission's report the accommodation in occupation of the applicant's land lords consists of 8 rooms, 3 store rooms, court yard and open terrace etc. The family of the applicant No.1 consists of himself, his wife, four sons and a daughter. His two sons have got married? and have their wives. The family of applicant No.2 consists of himself, his wife, three sons and a daughter. His eldest son also got married and has got his wife. The family of the applicant No.3 consists of himself, his wife, one daughter and two sons only. His widow sister and nephew cannot be included in his family. Thus there are six couples in total in the family of the applicant No.1 to 3, who are living in the house in question. One separate room is required for each couple. In this way only two rooms are left for remaining family members, who are nine in number and are studying. Therefore, the accommodation in occupation of the applicants is not sufficient for them. Further the applicant No.4, who has recently been transferred from Delhi to Lucknow is living along with his family in a rented accommodation. This also shows that the accommodation in occupation of the applicants is short for their requirements as alleged by them. The applicants own no other house in the City of Lucknow. It is clear from the record that when the accommodation in question let out to the opposite party the sons of the applicants were minors and recently three of them have been married. The applicant No.1 who was posted out of Lucknow had been retired and after retirement started living in the house in question along with his family members. Similarly the applicant No.4, who was posted out of Lucknow has been transferred to Lucknow. These circumstances are to be given due consideration. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the need of the applicants for additional accommodation is bonafide."

The petitioner is a railway employee whose one son has also joined the Indian Railways. Learned Prescribed Authority while holding the above mentioned proposition reached to the conclusion that the landlords bonafidely require the disputed premises. On the point of comparative hardship the learned Prescribed Authority has held that the case is pending since 1973 and there is nothing to show that the opposite parties or his son? has ever applied for allotment of any quarter in view of the pendency of release application. The learned Prescribed Authority has held that in the absence of that attempt he is of the opinion that the landlord shall suffer more hardship if the application is rejected as compared to the hardship of the tenant if the application is allowed. This judgment was assailed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge in Rent Appeal No. 127 of 1980 who has also dismissed the appeal and has conquered the findings of the learned Prescribed Authority. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.