JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by Kanti Prasad Maheshwari, landlord respondent No. 2, on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 13 of 1979 and was filed by Kanti Prasad, respondent No. 2 landlord against S. Majumdar, original tenant-petitioner, since deceased and survived by L.Rs. Accommodation in dispute is a house. Landlord stated that his family and the families of his three brothers consisted of 22 members, including seven married couples and they had only ten rooms at their disposal in their ancestral house hence he required additional separate accommodation.
2. Prescribed authority held that ten rooms were sufficient for 22 or 23 members, hence need was not bona fide. Question of comparative hardship was also decided in favour of the tenant. Release application was accordingly rejected on 9.11.1979 by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif Hawaii, Meerut. Against the said judgment and order landlord respondent No. 2 filed R.C. Appeal No. 510 of 1973. IIIrd A.D.J., Meerut, through judgment and order dated 18.7.1986 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority and allowed the release application of the landlord respondent No. 2. This writ petition filed by the tenant is directed against the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the appellate court.
3. The appellate court rightly held that 22 persons including seven married couples could not be compelled to reside in ten-room accommodation just to protect the tenant from eviction. The approach of the prescribed authority in this regard was rather illegal. Prescribed Authority did not properly appreciate the meaning of 'bona fide need'. Prescribed Authority was labouring under the misconception that the bona fide need means dire need. Absolutely no fault can be found with the finding of the appellate court that the need of the landlord for additional accommodation was just and bona fide.
4. On the ground floor of the accommodation in dispute landlord is running business. Hence it would be more convenient for the landlord to reside on the first floor. In the ancestral house of the landlord he has got l/4th share. The said house consists of 10 rooms. 22 persons, i.e., landlord and his brothers and their families are residing therein. Lower appellate court also found that according to the Commissioner's report in the ancestral house of the landlord there was no sitting or drawing room or study room. Concept of joint family particularly when head of the family is no more is gradually loosening in India. Four brothers, along with their families, residing in one ancestral house, when their father is no more, is no more a common phenomenon in India. In view of this it cannot be said that need of the landlord was not bona fide. House in dispute, which is first floor accommodation, consists of six rooms, rent of which is only Rs. 62.50.
5. In respect of comparative hardship, the appellate court found that the tenant was retired person and his eldest son was gainfully employed at Delhi and second son was a Lawyer in Meerut. Hence he could reside with any one of them. The tenant has died during the pendency of the writ petition and has been survived by his widow and two sons. In any case, petitioner did not show that what efforts he made to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. This itself was sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship in favour of the landlord, as held by the Supreme Court in B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada . Accordingly I do not find any error much less error of law in the judgment and order passed by the appellate court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
6. Tenant-petitioners are granted six months time to vacate provided that:
(1) Within one month from today they file an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of period of six months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the accommodation in dispute to the landlord-respondent.
(2) For this period of six months which has been granted to the petitioners to vacate they are required to pay Rs. 3,000 (at the rate of Rs. 500 per month) as damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the Prescribed Authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent.
7. In case of default in compliance with either of these conditions, tenants shall be evicted after one month through process of Court.
8. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 3,000 are not deposited within one month then tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation.
9. Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 3,000 the accommodation in dispute is not vacated after six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month since after six months till actual vacation.