The court upheld the principle that the need of the landlord must be bona fide and that the appellate court must consider additional evidence filed in appeal.

( 1 ) THE premises in dispute are three rooms, latrine, bath room on the ground floor of house No. 13/57 Parmit, Kanpur Nagar. Admittedly the respondent No. 3 is the landlady of the said house and she moved an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 alleging she is in bona fide need of the house. The application was allowed by the prescribed authority by judgment dated 26. 5. 1999. Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed a rent appeal No. 114 of 1999 under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The rent appeal has also been dismissed by order dated 5. 3. 2001. Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has therefore invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri W. H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, senior advocate, assisted by Sri P. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and the learned standing counsel.

( 3 ) THERE are concurrent findings of the both the courts below on the point that the need of the landlady is bona fide and that the hardship in her favour is more than the hardship which may be caused to the petitioner in case the application is allowed. These concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as stand taken in the following cases by this court as well as by the Apex Court : kamla Sarin v. Shyam Lal and others, 1984 (2) All RC 344, Munni Lal and another v. Prescribed authority and another. AIR 1978 SC 29, Natthu Lal v. Radhey, AIR 1974 SC 1696 : Babhutmal raichand v. Laxmibai, AIR 1975 SC 1296 ; Smt. Labhkumar Bhagwani Shaha v. Janardan mahadeo Kalan, AIR 1983 SC 535 ; Ram Rakesh Pal and another v. I Additional District Judge and others, 1967 UPRCC 376, Jagan Prasad u. District Judge and another, 1976 UPRCC 342. Laxmi Naratn v. IInd Additional District Judge and another. 1977 UPRCC 230 : Smt. Nirmala tandon v. Xth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, 1996 (2) ARC 409 and in the case of kamleshwar Prasad v. Praduman Ji Agarwal, 1997 (1) ARC 627.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the family of the landlady consists of six members. The respondent No. 3, her husband, three children and mother-in-law. That there is sufficient accommodation on the first floor and second floor of the house for the family. However, the need alleged by the landlady is that her mother-in-law is also living with her. who is very old and infirm and has been advised not to use the stair case. It is contended that, therefore, alleged need is for one room on ground floor for the mother-in-law of the landlady and court below has erred in releasing the entire accommodation. Learned counsel in support of the argument has referred to the Rule 16 (1) (d) of the Rules framed under the Act which provides that where the need of the landlord would be served by releasing one part of the accommodation, the prescribed authority shall release only that part. It is contended that both the courts below have erred in not considering this aspect.

( 5 ) REGARDING this, it has been argued by Sri R. K. Jain, senior advocate that a commission was issued in this case, whose report alongwith sketch plan of the disputed house is Annexure No. 5. It shows that in this house there is big room, a small room and courtyard, latrine. bath room and two dilapidated rooms on the ground floor. That the dilapidated rooms are in dangerous condition and are not fit to be used. That as such there are only two rooms on the ground floor. That the location of the rooms is such that one room alone can not be used. It is further argued that the release of one room will not satisfy the need as the old mother-in-law of the landlady shall also require a latrine and bath room on the ground floor.

( 6 ) CONSIDERING the arguments, I am of the view that release of one room would no