DHARAM PAL SINGH Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Dinesh Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority rejected the release application under section 21 (1) (a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 filed by the landlord to release the four rooms, courtyard and store rooms in the tenancy of the petitioner in the same house in which they were living on the ground that the landlord did not prove that he had bona fide need for additional accommodation. The Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 20. 9. 2005 and while allowing the Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2005 on 11. 9. 2007 held that the landlord has proved his bona fide need for more than five rooms. The tenant has made no effort in the last several years to find out any alternative accommodation and would not suffer greater hardships than the landlord it the release application is rejected.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner tenant contends that the landlord has five rooms in his occupation and another two rooms in dilapi-dated conditions, which he could make use for additional accommodation. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Appellate Court committed an error in considering the need of his married daughter Smt. Mamta Singh. She did not file any affidavit, giving the number of her children, who live at Fatehpur with their maternal grand parents. It is contended that the need of the married daughter should not have been taken into consideration while assessing the bona fide need of the landlord.