JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 26.10.2004, passed by the appellate authority' under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the 'Act') whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord and set aside the Order dated 4.9.1993, passed by the prescribed authority and directed for release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under :
That the petitioner is the tenant of the accommodation in question which is situated in House No. 5/116 Purana Kanpur, which is owned by Smt. Krishna Devi who filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act stating therein that the accommodation in question was let out by the landlady about 26 years back when number of the members of the family of the landlady was small. That by the passage of time the number of the members in the family of landlady has increased and her family is consisting eight members namely, Smt. Krishna Devi, her daughter, Smt. Asha Devi Mishra, Murari Lal,' son-in-law, Gokarnath Mishra, father of the son in law. Krishna Mohan Mishra, son of the daughter. Km. Renu Mishra, grand daughter, Surya ,Mohan Mishra, son of daughter and Chandra Mohan Mishra, son of the daughter. Because of the Increasing members in the family of the landlady, the accommodation at the, disposal of the landlady is short and in Order to live she requires additional accommodation. That the landlady asked the tenant several times to vacate the accommodation as she is feeling the shortage of the accommodation but he inspite of promises to vacate did not vacate it. That the landlady is aged about 75 years and all the members in the family of the landlady are major and are receiving their education. That the son-in-law and father of the son-in-law are residing with the landlady and would be covered by the definition of the 'family' as they are persons to look after the landlady who is aged widow. That the grown up children also require separate rooms for studying and living. It was therefore, prayed that the accommodation in question may be released in favour of the landlady. The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid application stating therein that the accommodation at the disposal of the landlady is more than sufficient and there is yet another tenant namely, Babboo Pandey who can vacate his accommodation any time because he has taken another accommodation at 76/6, Vishnupuri Colony. The accommodation which was in possession of N. K. Dwivedi, is lying vacant as he has already shifted to police line. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, the prescribed authority found that the need of the landlady is not bona fide and also found that since" the son-in-law and his father are not covered under the definition of word 'family' used under the Act, therefore, bona fide requirement and comparative hardship of the landlady has to be considered excluding their requirement. The prescribed authority by the Order dated 4.9.1993, dismissed the application filed by the landlady for release of the accommodation in question. Aggrieved thereby the landlady preferred an appeal under the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. That during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, the tenant filed an application for local inspection of the building in question by an advocate commissioner to inspect House No. 5/115, 5/161 and 5/161 and to note down the accommodation therein, which has been registered as paper No. 48Ga. This paper No. 48Ga has been objected by the landlady by filing her objection 49Ga. The appellate authority directed that the application will be disposed off at the time of disposal of the appeal itself. It has also been brought on record that during the pendency of the appeal Smt. Krishna Devi, landlady died, it was therefore, argued on behalf of tenant before the appellate authority that the application for release was filed by Smt. Krishna Devi (now dead) for accommodating Smt. Asha Devi Mishra, daughter and her family and that the release application was rejected by the prescribed authority on the ground that married daughter of Smt. Krishna Devi would not be covered by the definition of word 'family' used under the Act and after excluding the married daughter, Smt. Asha Devi Mishra and her family, the accommodation at the disposal of the landlady. Smt. Krishna Devi is sufficient. That she does not require any additional accommodation. During the pendency of the appeal since Smt. Krishna Devi died, her daughter Smt. Asha Devi Mishra filed an application that now Smt. Asha Devi Mishra has become the landlady and the application filed by Smt. Krishna Devi may be considered for the requirement of Smt. Asha Devi and her family. The appellate authority in the changed circumstances has addressed itself to consider the bona fide requirement of Smt. Asha Devi and her family on the objection raised by the tenant. The appellate authority found that after the death of Smt. Krishna Devi, her daughter Smt. Asha Devi Mishra became the owner of the building in which the accommodation in question is situated, along with Smt. Sushila Devi. That in these circumstances Smt. Asha Devi Mishra alone has right to file and persue the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act filed by Smt. Krishna Devi. It is Significant to note, as observed by the appellate authority that the original release application was filed by Smt. Krishna Devi for requirement of her family including Smt. Asha Devi Mishra and her children who were residing with Smt. Krishna Devi. The appellate authority further observed even assuming Smt. Asha Devi Mishra and Sushila Devi became the landladies, It is settled that one of the co-landlords can file an application for release for his personal requirement including his family. Thus, the appellate authority held that Smt. Asha Devi Mishra can file and pursue application and application cannot be said' to be defective because of non-impleadment of Sushila Devi. The appellate authority therefore, has assessed the accommodation at the disposal of Smt. Asha Devi Mishra considering the requirement of her family and arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlady namely, Asha Devi Mishra is bona fide. So far as the father-in-law of the landlady is concerned, the father-in-law of the landlady is an old man living in the city of Kanpur, having no other relative except daughter-in-law, therefore, it is responsibility of Smt. Asha Devi Mishra and her husband to look after the old father-in-law and for that the requirement of father-in-law is also to be considered as requirement of the landlady. The appellate authority thereafter discussed the requirement of every member of the family and came to the conclusion that the findings of the prescribed authority deserve to be set aside and therefore he set aside the findings of the prescribed authority. The appellate authority thereafter arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlady, Smt. Asha Devi Mishra is bona fide. On the question of comparative hardship it is found that it is true when any application for release is allowed, the tenant faces. the difficulty but the landlord's requirement cannot be refused only on the ground that the tenant would be facing difficulty once the authority comes to the conclusion that the requirement is bona fide. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case in Sanjay Kumar and Ors. v. Subodh Kumar and Ors., 2004 (1) ARC 148, the view taken by the appellate authority finds support and argument to the contrary advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner deserves. to be repelled. With the aforesaid findings the appellate authority set aside the findings of the prescribed authority and directed for release of the accommodation In favour of the landlady.
3. Before this Court learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same arguments, as were advanced on behalf of the tenant-petitioner before the appellate authority by citing one or other evidence from record to canvass that this Court should re-appraise the evidence on record.
4. I am afraid that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, 2004 (2) AWC 1721 (SC) : (2004) 3 SCC 682. It is not permissible for this Court to reappraise the evidence on record to arrive at the different conclusion than what has been arrived at by the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that the findings arrived at by the appellate authority with regard to bona fide need are perverse and deserve to be set aside but has failed to demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority either suffer from any error much less manifest error of law or are perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that the appellate authority has not dealt with the question of comparative hardship and summed up only in one small para that the need of the landlady cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that if the application is allowed, tenant will suffer hardship of eviction. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra), in my opinion, the view taken by the appellate authority is correct. So far as the comparative hardship is concerned there is yet another reason since after filing of the release application the tenant has made no effort to find out any alternative accommodation therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in N.S. Dutta and Ors. v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Ors., 1984 ARC 113, the petitioner cannot object to the release of the accommodation by Saying that he will suffer more hardship than that of landlord.
5. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order if any, stands vacated.