JUDGMENT J.C. Gupta, J.
1. Heard petitioners' counsel Shri Rajesh Tandon and Shri Ashok Bhushan counsel appearing for the landlord-caveator.
2. This is tenants' writ petition.
3. The landlord filed a release application in relation to the accommodation in question which is in occupation of the petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs. 26. The landlord came with the case that before the purchase of the accommodation in question, he was residing in a rented house in the same city of Nainital at a rental of Rs. 1,000 per month and since he was going to retire from Government service soon, it was not possible for him to live in the rented house and pay rent of Rs. 1,000 per month and since he has no other house in the city of Nainital, he bona fide required the accommodation in question for his personal need. The ten ants-petitioners contested the said application disputing the allegation of the landlord. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 24.7.1995 allowed the application and the appeal filed by the tenants-petitioners has also been dismissed by the respondent No. 1 by the order dated 26.3.1998.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance upon the decision in Sahab Lal and others v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1983 (2) ARC 508, urged that in the present case, there is no finding that the landlord was faced with any threatening of eviction from the rented house which he is occupying and, therefore, the Courts below have committed an error of law in allowing the release application. In the aforesaid decision, the findings of fact were that the landlord was residing in the tenanted accommodation peacefully which was sufficient and there was no pressure for vacating it . It was held on the facts of that case that the case of release did not arise and the law was not that the landlord should get his house merely because he was the owner of it . He must show that the need is bona fide for residential, official or commercial purposes to be decided on the touch stone of comparative need and hardships of landlord and tenant.
5. Assuming for the sake of argument that the landlord does not have a right to get his house released merely on the ground of his being in occupation of a rented house, there may still be circumstances which may indicate that the need of the landlord for his own house is genuine and bona fide. No hard and fast Rule can be laid down in this regard and the question whether or not a need is bona fide is to be answered on the facts of each case. One of the circumstances which may weigh with the Court in determining the bona fide need may be a threat of eviction of the landlord from the house which he is occupying on rent but to say that this would be the only ground for Inferring the bona fide need would not be a correct statement of law. In the present case, concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are that the landlord is residing in a rented house on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 that the landlord. who was in Government service, has retired ; that he has no other source of Income and was facing a great financial hardship in paying Rs. 1,000 per month as rent for the rented house ; that he is getting only a meagre rent of Rs. 26 per month from the tenant-petitioners in respect of the house in question ; and that he has no other house or accommodation in Nainital to live In. On the basis of these findings. It has rightly been concluded by the Courts below that the need of the landlord was bona fide as he could not be compelled to continue to live in the rented house and pay a huge amount of rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month after his retirement specially when he has no other source of Income. It would be against the true spirit and Intent of the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) not to allow him to have his own house for his residential purpose. The findings recorded by the Courts below on the question of bona fide need, therefore, do not suffer from any manifest error of law and are affirmed.
6. The other question of comparative hardship has also been decided concurrently in favour of the landlord-respondent and on examination of record, I find no Infirmity or Illegality therein.
7. As per the findings recorded by the Courts below, the petitioners have not made any effort to get the house, which is in occupation of the landlord, allotted to them. Since an order of eviction has already been passed, the said accommodation is likely to fall vacant in law and the petitioners can well apply for allotment of the same in their favour. Rule 11 deals with the order of priorities which is to be followed in allotment of residential buildings and in clause (2), priority is to be given to a person against whom an order has been passed for eviction under Section 21 of the Act. The petitioner may, therefore, apply for the allotment of the said accommodation and if such an application is made, the same shall be decided by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in accordance with law keeping in view Rule 11 of the Rules framed under the Act.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that in order to avail the aforesaid opportunity of making application for allotment, the petitioner may be allowed a reasonable time to vacate the premises in question.
9. In the circumstances, the petitioners are allowed time upto 30th September. 1998, to vacate the premises in question subject to the petitioner's filing an undertaking in writing on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority, within one month from today, to the effect that they shall handover vacant possession of the accommodation in question to the landlord on or before 30th September, 1998, and shall not induct any third person therein. If no such undertaking is filed within the aforesaid period of one month and undertaking is not honoured, this order extending period for delivery of possession shall stand automatically vacated. Petitioner's eviction from the premises in question shall remain suspended for a period of one month from today and in case the required undertaking is filed within the said period, the execution of the order of release shall remain suspended till 30th September, 1998.
10. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed summarily.