JUDGMENT Vikram Nath, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the tenant against the judgment dated 12.9.1983, passed by the XIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in Rent Appeal No. 418 of 1981, whereby the appeal of the landlord was allowed and after setting aside the judgment of the prescribed authority dated 6.11.1981, the release application of the landlord for eviction of the petitioner was allowed.
2. Respondent No. 3 is the landlady of house No. E-46, Khapra Mohal, Kanpur. It was in the tenancy of the petitioner. During the pendency of the petition both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had died and their heirs have been brought on record. The respondent No. 3 filed an application in 1981 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that there were total 23 members in her family, who were residing in a house at 75/204A Ranjit Purwa Dhankutti, Kanpur. It was further alleged that she has 5 married sons and grown up children, are living in the Ranjit Purwa house having only 5 rooms. This accommodation was totally inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, for better and comfortable living she required the premises in dispute bona fide and her need was pressing.
3. The petitioner contested the release application on the ground that firstly, there were 7 rooms in the Ranjit Purwa house and was sufficient for the need of the landlady and her family members. It is further alleged that one of her married sons is living in Shuklagunj and one son has started living in a portion of the Khapra Mohal house on the first and second floor. In view of this 11 out of 23 members were residing in separate house and for the remaining 12 members 7 rooms at Ranjit Purwa was sufficient. The commissioner report was also called for with regard to the accommodation available with the landlady. The house of Ranjit Purwa and Khapra Mohal were inspected and report was submitted on 12.10.1981. In so far as house at Shuklaganj is concerned the same was in district Unnao and there was no request also for inspection. The Commissioner reported that there were 7 rooms at Ranjit Purwa premises where the landlady was residing. It was further submitted that in Khapra Mohal premises on ground floor the tenant Sohan Lal is residing and on the first floor one of the sons Shankar Singh was residing with his family members.
4. The Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 6.11.1981 came to the conclusion that the landlady had sufficient accommodation for her occupation and need set up was not bona fide. On these findings, he rejected the release application. Aggrieved by the same landlady filed an appeal, which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 418 of 1981. The Appellate Authority did not agree with the findings of the Prescribed Authority and held that Prescribed Authority erred in holding that there were 7 rooms in Ranjit Purwa where as in fact there were 6 rooms and secondly, he held that the requirement of the landlady, with the number of family members, would be sufficiently met in case she had 10 rooms or more and allowed the appeal and also the release application of the landlady vide judgment dated 12.9.1983. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. I have heard Sri S.K. Kakkar, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Som Narayan Mishra, and Sri C.P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents.
6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court is vitiated on account of the fact that it has completely ignored the fact that Shankar Singh son of Sohan Lal is residing on the first floor in the building in Khapra Mohal alongwith his family members. The fact that the Shankar Singh was residing in Khapra Mohal has also come in the evidence and in the report of the Commissioner dated 12.10.1981. In view of the same the Appellate Authority ought to have considered the requirement of the family consisting of 18 members only and not 23 members. On the other hand, Counsel for respondent Shankar Singh has contended that the accommodation at Ranjit Purwa is totally insufficient. Even if it is assumed that Shankar Singh is residing at Khapra Mohal still the premises at Ranjit Purwa was insufficient for the remaining family members, which had further grown with time.
7. In Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit it is admitted that Shankar Singh is residing in Khapra Mohal. In Paragraph 11 it is stated that the family members have increased to 26 members and accommodation at Ranjit Purwa was not sufficient and further additional accommodation is required. It is alleged in Paragraph 17 that the petitioner has small family having 3 members, which includes wife and one daughter.
8. I have examined the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. On account of fact that the Appellate Court has recorded specific finding of fact that 10 rooms was required at the minimum level by the landlady. Even accepting the contention that one son was residing with family members at Khapra Mohsal house, still the requirement of the landlady and her other sons and for future growing up children it would be appropriate, if the accommodation is released in favour of the landlady. Further there is yet another reason that Sohal Lal tenant has also died during the pendency the case and his family consists of his wife and one daughter. The daughter is already married and during pendency of the appeal wife of Sohan Lal has also died. In the substitution application also the daughter and the daughter's son have been brought on record as legal heir. The tenants have continued in possession for almost 25 years after the notice terminating the tenancy was given and the release application was filed.
9. Even today the tenant has not said that he has not been able to find another accommodation despite efforts. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment. The tenant petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
10. Writ petition is, accordingly dismissed.