FAIZ MOHD. Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD -respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the premises in occupation of the petitioner. The application was allowed by the prescribed Authority and the appeal preferred by the tenant has been dismissed by the learned District Judge. Hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the release, application the landlord had described his family as consisting of his mother himself, his wife, two sons, one un -married and one married daughter. During the pendency of the litigation the mother of the landlord and one of his sons died and, therefore, there was no requirement of additional residential accommodation. The record shows that the mother of the landlord died when the case was pending before the prescribed Authority and the effect of her death has been considered in the judgment of the trial court. The son of the landlord died when the case was pending in appeal before the learned District Judge and this point has been considered by the appellate authority. Both the authorities below have held that the need of the landlord is bona fide and genuine. The copy of the report of the Commissioner and the map has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition and it shows that the landlord has got only two rooms, one verandah and a court -yard in his possession. At present his family consists of himself, his wife, and unmarried son who is of marriageable age, and unmarried daughter, his son's widow and two grand -children. That apart his married daughter along with her children often visited her parental home. The landlord was working in the Railways and retired as Assistant Commercial Superintendent and looking to his status it is obvious that he requires some additional rooms. The widowed daughter -in -law cannot live in the same room in which her -in -laws are living. There are only two rooms in the premises in occupation of the landlord and looking to the size of the family of the landlord they are wholly insufficient for his requirement. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and genuine is wholly unfounded.

(2.) LEARNED counsel next contended that the finding of the prescribed Authority as well as of the District Judge on the point of comparative hardship is erroneous. I have examined the judgment of both the courts below and in my opinion they have rightly held that the landlord will suffer greater hardship in the event of refusal of the release application. It may be noticed that though the release application was filed on 18 -2 -1985 and is pending for about seven years, the petitioner -tenant did not make any effort whatsoever to get an alternative accommodation. It is well settled that conduct of the tenant in not making effort for an alternative accommodation for himself is a relevant consideration for deciding the question of comparative hardship. The findings on the questions of bona fide need and comparative hardship are based upon evidence and being findings of facts cannot be interfered with in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.