SHAKUR Vs. VTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's writ petition.

(2.) THE landlord has filed an application praying for the release of the accommodation in question under the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The petitioner is a Teli by caste and has a small business of extracting oil for which purpose he used a Kohlu which is driven by bullocks. According to the petitioner, the accommodation in his possession on the ground floor consists of one small Astable divided into three portions one after the other, the front portion of which was used for extracting oil and the middle portion was used for residential purpose. It was asserted that there was neither any kitchen nor latrine, bath room, verandah or courtyard in the possession of the petitioner. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife and eight children and it was averred that the accommodation in his possession was not sufficient for the petitioner to live in. It was then asserted that the tenant respondent who was living on the first floor, was not using the accommodation himself but unnecessarily retaining it in order to have some financial gain. It was further the case of the petitioner that the respondent-tenant had a House No. 152, in mohalla Sabungaran, Meerut and he was residing in that house with his family and living comfortably.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority considered two questions, namely (1) whether the premises in question was bonafide required by the petitioner and (2) the question of comparative hardship to the parties.