Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The tenant has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 29th October, 2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which 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 release of the house has been allowed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 6th August, 2011 by which the Appeal filed by the tenant under Section 22 of the Act for setting aside the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority has been dismissed.

2. The landlord-Noor Illahi-respondent No. 3 had filed the application dated 21st December, 2001 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the room and verandah on the ground-floor in premises No. 14/47, Badlu Prasad Compound, Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar as it was bona fide required since he was residing in a tenanted house bearing No. 92/137, Hiraman Ka Purwa, Kanpur Nagar while the tenant Shiv Prasad had expired and his family members had vacated the accommodation and were living elsewhere. In the affidavit filed in support of the release application in March, 2002, the landlord also stated that his landlord of House No. 92/137 had filed an application for release of the house which was allowed and the appeal filed by him had also been dismissed against which he had filed Writ Petition No. 38336 of 1997 in which an interim order was passed and he was continuing to reside in the tenanted house because of the interim order. The petitioner-Laxmi Narayan filed a reply to the aforesaid application stating that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and nor he was likely to suffer greater hardship in comparison to that of the tenant. It was pointed out that the landlord had sufficient accommodation available with him in House No. 92/137 and there was no requirement at all of additional accommodation.

3. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 27th October, 2010 allowed the release application filed by the landlord. It found that the landlord-Noor Illahi had purchased the property on 30th March, 1999 and had filed the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on 13th December, 2001 after giving six months’ notice to the tenant on 15th May, 2001. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, held that there was sufficient compliance of the first proviso to Section 21 of the Act which requires that where the building was in occupation of the tenant since before its purchase by the landlord, no application shall be entertained under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such purchase and the landlord has given notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months before such application is filed, and such notice can be given even before the expiration of the said property of three years.

4. The Prescribed Authority thereafter considered whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant and gave a finding in favour of the landlord. The Prescribed Authority also found that the need of the landlord was bona fide as he was residing in a tenanted House No. 92/137, Hiraman Ka Purwa, Kanpur Nagar and the application for eviction filed by his landlord had been allowed against which the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court and after the dismissal of the appeal, a writ petition was filed by him in which there was an interim order. The Prescribed Authority also recorded a finding that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship than the tenant.

5. The tenant-Laxmi Narayan filed an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act. This Appeal was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 6th August, 2011. The Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Prescribed Authority that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed and that the tenanted house was bona fide required by the landlord as he did not have any other residence. The Appellate Court also