(1.) THE Writ petition is directed against an order of eviction of the petitioner from ground floor of premises No. 161 situate la Mohalla Sabungram Kasba Mauranipur, district Jhansi passed by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Mauranipur on 3-5-1991 under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which order was maintained by the appellate order dated 30-4-1992.
(2.) THE respondent landlord, Ram Sahai applied for eviction of the tenant petitioner from the premises in dispute and for release of the same in his favour on the ground that he bona fide required the premises in dispute for himself and for members of his family, in view of the facts and circumstances stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the release application From the tenor of the application it appears that the landlord wanted the premises in dispute for the purposes of his son, Harish Chandra, who, as alleged in the application, was married recently. It was also alleged in the release application that the tenant-petitioner had got constructed a big house in Mohalla Bajpaipura. Where he has already shifted and is residing along with his family members.
(3.) SRI Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the appellate authority was not justified in reversing the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the question of bona fide need in absence of any cross objection. SRI G. N. Verma. Learned Counsel for the respondent landlord, on the other hand, urged that the appellate authority was competent to reverse the finding of the Prescribed Authority on the question of bona - fide need of the landlord even in absence of a cross objection. He placed reliance upon Order 4 rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 38 of the Act and urged that the provisions contained in Order 41 rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure enabled the appellate authority to pronounce a correct judgment, on the basis of material before It, on the questions relating to bonafide need of the respondent landlord.