The judgment established the principle that the bonafide need of the landlord for releasing premises for residential purposes should be determined objectively, and the comparative hardship should be considered in reaching a decision.

S.K. GUPTA, J.--Sri Hari Om Verma has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by prescribed authority/First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow directing the release of the premises in question in favour of the landlady exercising its jurisdiction under section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and order of its affirmation dated 19.10.2005 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 12th, Lucknow in Rent Control Appeal No. 24 of 2002.

2. The background facts in a nutshell essentially are as follows:

(i) The respondent-landlady filed an application under section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (in short 'Act') for ejectment and release of the shop in dispute on the ground of bonafide and genuine need alleging therein that she is owner-landlady of House No. 401/100, Abdul Aziz Road, Lucknow, situate on a land measuring 600 sq. ft. and on the ground floor of the building there are 5 shops and on the first floor of the said building there are two rooms, one kitchen, one kothari, toilet, small open terrace and on the second floor there is a room measuring 8"x 8" and open roof. The applicant along with his family consists of 20 members. Out of the 5 shops mentioned, one is in the occupation of the applicant in which Rizwan Ali is running a P.C.O. and other four are in the tenancy of other tenants. Out of the said 4 shops one is in the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 12.50 wherein the petitioner-tenant is running a business of text books and stationary in the name of Shamsi Book Depot.

(ii) It is further stated in the application under section 21 of the Act, that out of 5 sons of the applicant landlord, 4 are unemployed and the applicant requires the shop in tenancy of the opposite parties for the residential purposes of her family.

(iii) It is further stated that out of the 4 sons of the tenant only Hari Ram Verma is sitting in the shop in dispute and other sons of the tenant are already employed and earning livelihood and more over all the daughters of the tenant are also in service. The accommodation in possession of the landlady-applicant is not sufficient considering the size of her family. The landlady-applicant has no other alternative suitable accommodation for her family.

(iv) It appears that during the pendency of the application under section 21 of the Act Sri Kanhaiya Lal, tenant of the premises in dispute expired on 4.5.1988 and was substituted by his legal heirs. The bonafide need of the landlady was contested by the tenant and inter alia stated that the need of the landlady is neither genuine nor bonafide and stated that sufficient accommodation is already available with the landlady-applicant for her and her family members and the shop under the tenancy of the opposite party tenant can not be converted into residential. It was further stated that the landlady-applicant always tried to harass the answering tenant and several attempts were made forcibly to evict the answering opposite parties from the shop in question and as such was compelled to file the suit for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed on 27.1.1998.

(v) After the exchange of pleadings and affidavits the prescribed authority allowed the application filed under section 21 of the Act by order dated 18.3.2002. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 18.3.2002, an appeal was filed by the tenants which was registered as Appeal No. 24 of 2002 in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room No. 12, Lucknow. However, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19.10.2005 affirming the judgment and order of the prescribed authority dated 18.3.2002. Hence this writ petition.

3. It is notable that this writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the Court below has been filed only by Hari Om Verma one of the legal heirs of the erstwhile tenant late Sri Kanhaiya Lal.

4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the p