CHHOTE LAL Vs. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This writ petition field by landlord arises out of the eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against the respondent No. 2/tenant under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application was registered as P. A. Case No. 72 of 1978 and was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by judgment and order dated 26-7-1979. The tenant respondent filed appeal against the same under Section 22 of the Act being Rent Control Appeal No. 372 of 1979, which was allowed by III Additional District Judge, Varanasi, by judgment and order dated 14-5-1980. This writ petition is directed against the said judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority while allowing the release application placed reliance upon the Rule 16 (1) (b) and (g ). THE lower Appellate Court did not appreciate such approach on the ground that it was not stated in the release application that the sons were minor at the time of letting and later on they became major. In my opinion even if reference of Rule 16 (1) (b) made by Prescribed Authority is banished from the consideration, still the finding of the Prescribed Authority regarding bona fide need of the landlord is unassailable. THE Prescribed Authority recorded the findings that the landlord had four sons, two major and two minor, the major sons were married, having children the landlord had only four rooms, which were not sufficient and he required more accommodation for accommodating his family. Even without reference to Rule 16 (1) (b) such type of need is quite bona fide.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY writ petition is allowed.