Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—At the time of arguments no one appeared on behalf of the respondent even though the case was taken up in the revised list. Accordingly, only the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.

2. This is landlord’s writ petition whose release application filed on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 has been rejected by both the Courts below. Release application was registered as P.A. case No. 24 of 1997 and was dismissed by Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Saharanpur on 16.6.1999. Against the said judgment and order landlord-petitioner filed R.C. Appeal No. 15 of 1999. Illrd Additional District Judge, Saharanpur dismissed the appeal on 6.11.1999 hence this writ petition.

3. House in dispute is situate within the city of Saharanpur and contains three rooms, one store room, kitchen, bath-room, latrine veranda and sahan. Rent is Rs. 100/- per month.

4. Case set up in the release application was that the landlord was in service in Education Department of Delhi Government and had retired from the said service in 1995; that landlord had a flat at Delhi however, his elder son who was at Singapore was coming back to India within a fortnight and landlord intended to settle him in his flat at Delhi. It was further pleaded that Saharanpur was ancestral city of the landlord and he has great attachment with the City and he intended to shift in the house in dispute alongwith his younger son and his younger son would complete his education at Saharanpur.

5. The tenant pleaded that landlord had ancestral house in Saharanpur and in partition among him and his brothers landlord had got a separate share/portion of the ancestral house and this fact was not disclosed by the landlord in the release application. Landlord in reply to the said allegation admitted that separate portion of ancestral house had come in his share in family partition. However, landlord further asserted that the said portion was not habitatable. Both the Courts below after thorough examination of the entire material on record in this regard found that some damages had been done to the ancestral house by the landlord himself in order to show that it was in dilapidated condition. The Courts below held that until 1992-93 the said house was assessed to house tax without any objection meaning thereby it was actually inhabitated. The more important circumstance on the basis of which the Courts below held that the portion of the ancestral house which came in the share of the landlord was quite habitable and only some damage had been done to the said portion by the landlord in order to create ground of eviction was that the other portions of the ancestral house which had fallen in the share of other brothers of the landlord were perfectly in order and actually inhabitated.

6. Courts below also found that landlord had got his own flat at Delhi which was quite spacious and he had retired from service at Delhi hence there was no likelihood of his shifting back to Saharanpur.

7. I do not find least error in the concurrent findings of the Court below. The fact that remaining portion of the ancestral house was quite habitable and actually inhabitated clearly proved that the portion which had fallen in the share of the landlord was also quite habitatable and whatever damages was there it was caused by the landlord himself in order to create ground for bonafide need of house in dispute. In any case it was essential for the landlord to disclose the separate share/portion of the ancestral house which he had got in partition. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ petition hence it is dismissed.

8. However, this case is an occasion for the legislature to ponder. U.P. Rent Control Act (No. 13 of 1972) has frozen the rents for 36 years and eviction of tenants has been made very difficult. The result is that landlords are damaging their own prope