The expression "for occupation by himself" in Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 includes the personal requirement of the landlord and may include persons permanently residing with him, even if they are not members of his family as defined in the Act.

J. C. GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS landladys petition,

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to a portion of residential house No. 118/500. Kaushalpuri, Kanpur which is in occupation of respondent No. 3 as tenant on behalf of the petitioner-landlady. The landlady moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against respondent No. 3 for releasing the said accommodation in her favour on the ground that she was in dire need of additional accommodation because the accommodation already in her occupation was not sufficient to cater the need of her family members which consisted of herself, three married sons their wives and grandchildren, it was further alleged that her mother-in-law Smt. Ram Dulari was also living with her. The landlady has in her occupation only two rooms measuring 8 x 8 a kothari measuring 6 x 3 and a verandah, whereas the family of the tenant consisted of himself, his wife and two children. Therefore, the landlady would suffer a greater hardship than that of the tenant in case the application was rejected. The application was contested by the tenant on a number of grounds. It was alleged that one of the sons of the landlady has taken up his residence in Vijay Nagar colony and her grandchildren were all minors and that she was comfortably living in the portion occupied by her and her need for additional requirement was not bona fide inasmuch as she simply wanted to oust the tenant as she has done with other tenants. The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application and the appeal filed by the landlady has also been dismissed. Both the orders have been challenged in this writ petition.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri S. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shrt Vtnod Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities below have rejected the claim of the petitioner on wrong parameters of law inasmuch as they have erroneously excluded from consideration the requirement of the mother-in-law of the petitioner who was undisputedly living with the petitioner merely on the ground that she was not a member of family as defined under the Act. It was also argued that the findings of the Courts below are vitiated as the question of bona fide need of the landlady has been answered on misreading of evidence and further that the rejoinder-affidavit filed on behalf of the landlady before the Prescribed Authority has not been taken into account which explained the position with regard to the allegation of the tenant about the petitioners son having another house in his occupation- On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the question of bona fide need of the petitioner and, therefore, this Court should not intervene.

( 5 ) IT is true that this Court while exercising powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india does not act as a court of appeal and the powers are of judicial review only. It is also well settled that this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review does not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below on appraisal of evidence but that does not mean that in no case this Court will intervene. When can Interference be made in writ jurisdiction in such cases, has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Variety emporium v. V. R. M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina. 1985 (I) SCC 251. In that case, the Apex Court made interference on the ground that injustice should not be allowed to be perpetuated.

( 6 ) EVEN in those cases where this Court in it s writ jurisdiction is faced with concurrent decisions, it is the duty of the Court to examine the material and do justice between the parties and it will be a denial of Justice if the Court acts on a computerised system of administration of justice by just affix