The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving a landlord's bona fide need and the landlord's freedom to choose suitable accommodation for eviction purposes.

( 1 ) -THE tenant has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 4th May, 1989 by which the Prescribed Authority allowed the application filed by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "act) for eviction of the tenant from the accommodation in dispute as it was bona fide required by the landlord. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 16th July, 2002 by which the Appeal filed by the tenant under section 22 of the Act was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act had been filed by four applicants Smt. Parbati, Smt. Laxmi Devi, Smt. Surja Devi and Smt. Basanti Devi. It was stated that the applicants jointly purchased the disputed house in the year 1958 with a view to reconstruct the same so that they may have sufficient accommodation for their family members; that because of the differences between the applicants, Smt. Laxmi Devi filed Original Suit No. 100 of 1966 for partition of her 1/4th share in the disputed house and ultimately the suit was decided on 28th May, 1975 on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties wherein the share of each applicant was demarcated; that the applicants desire to reconstruct the portions falling in their respective share but it was not possible to do so unless the tenant vacated the building; that the tenanted premises consists of about 10 rooms, veranda, store and kitchen and was let out on monthly rent of Rs. 134. 14 per month; that the tenant owns premises No. 127/128 wherein he can shift his business and can also obtain any other accommodation.

( 3 ) THE tenant filed a detailed reply to the aforesaid application mentioning therein that the applicants did not bona fide require the accommodation in dispute; that in fact the applicants had sufficient alternative accommodation; that the major portion of the building was used for manufacturing of Ayurvedic medicines and that the tenant would suffer greater hardship in case the release application was allowed.

( 4 ) THE Prescribed Authority found that only the need of Smt. Surja Devi applicant No. 3 /respondent No. 5 was bona fide and the need of other three applicants was not bona fide. It also found that Smt. Surja Devi was likely to suffer greater hardship if the release application was rejected and, therefore, ordered that the tenant shall vacate the premises falling in her share namely three rooms, one passage, servant quarter and open land, out of ten rooms occupied by the landlord.

( 5 ) THE tenant filed an Appeal under section 22 of the Act. During the pendency of the Appeal the tenant also filed an affidavit mentioning therein that Smt. Surja Devi had in the meantime purchased two more houses and both the aforesaid houses were spacious and, therefore, Smt. Surja Devi did not bona fide require the accommodation in dispute. The Appellate Court by the judgment and order dated 16th July, 2002 dismissed the Appeal.

( 6 ) I have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.

( 7 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority committed an illegality in holding that the need of Smt. Surja Devi was bona fide. He contended that Smt. Surja Devi possessed four houses namely : (A) 47/72, Hatiya, Kanpur; (B) 87/6-D, Hiraganj, Kanpur; (C) 3-A/146, Azad Nagar, Kanpur, and (D) 3-A/85, Azad Nagar, Kanpur from where her need could be satisfied.

( 8 ) HE further contended that the tenant was likely to suffer greater hardship in the event the application filed by the landlord was allowed but the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have wrongly inferred that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship.

( 9 ) SRI Atul Dayal, learned Counsel for the