The main legal point established is that the bonafide need for separate accommodation and the hardship faced by the petitioner are crucial factors in deciding the release of the premises.

Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

Heard Mr. S. K. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Miglani, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Shyam Lal.

2. The petitioner, who is the landlord, had filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for the release of the house in question for his personal need and for his family. The facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid application is that the petitioner’s parents were residing in the ground floor and the petitioner and his wife were residing on the first floor. In paragraph 9 of the application, it has been asserted that the house belongs to his parents. It was contended that the petitioner and his wife have no children and this had become a bone of contention of a strained relationship with his parents and between his wife and his parents also and, on account of the strained relationship, it was asserted in paragraph 11 that the parents asked him to leave their house and reside elsewhere. Accordingly, the petitioner purchased a residential house on 07th April, 1989 and, upon the expiry of three years, filed an application for the release of the house on the ground of his personal need.

3. In this house, the opposite party Shyam Lal was living as a tenant for several decades, who resisted the application contending that there was no personal need of the petitioner and that the need shown in the application was not bonafide. The opposite party contended that there was no requirement of any residential accommodation for the petitioner in as much as the petitioner was living happily, separately and independently on the first floor of his parent’s house and that the parents were living separately on the ground floor. It was also alleged that if the application was allowed, the tenant would suffer more than the petitioner in as much as the tenant would not be able to get another accommodation for the same kind of rent, which he was paying.

4. Before the prescribed authority, a number of documents by way of evidence was filed, namely, that the petitioner and his parents have their separate mess arrangements. Affidavits were filed to the extent that the petitioner and his parents were living separately.

5. The prescribed authority, after considering the material evidence that was brought on record, held that there was a strained relationship between the petitioner, his wife with the petitioner’s parents and this strained relationship was causing a lot of tension between the families and, on this score, the prescribed authority concluded that there was a bonafide need for the petitioner to live separately. On the question of hardship, the prescribed authority found that in the given circumstance, the petitioner would face more hardship than the tenant.

6. The tenant, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which was allowed and the order of the prescribed authority was set aside. The appellate court held that the petitioner landlord failed to prove his strained relationship between himself and his parents and that in the absence of any evidence on this issue being filed, the appellate court concluded that the need of the petitioner was not genuine nor bonafide. The appellate court further came to the conclusion that since the petitioner was living separately on the first floor and had its own establishment, the need to live in the new accommodation did not arise. The appellate court further concluded that there was no plea that the petitioner required the additional accommodation or that the existing accommodation was insufficient for his requirement. The appellate court, consequently, held that the need for the release of the building was not bonafide and accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the prescribed authority.

7. The landlord, being aggrieved by the order of the appellate court, has filed the present writ petition.

8. The arguments raised by the parties are more or less the same, which were