The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the Civil Court decree in establishing ownership/title, the landlord's genuine bonafide need for additional accommodation, and the landlord's right to live peacefully in their own house.

Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rajni Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.

This writ petition arose out of a proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application was filed by three persons namely Sri Ram Chandra Prasad, Sri Prabhu Nath Prasad and Sri Hari Nath Prasad sons of late Ram Khelawan Ram on 23rd August, 2006 with regard to the house in Block No. 1, Ward No. 17, Nagar Palika Parishad, Ballia, the boundaries of which has been given in schedule (?-1) of the plaint.

2. It is stated in the release application that the accommodation given in schedule (?-1) which consists of two rooms, latrine & bathroom and staircase (hereinafter referred to as the "accommodation in question") came in the share of the applicants pursuant to a decree dated 7.9.2002 passed by the Civil Court in a partition suit namely Original Suit No. 203 of 2001 (Ram Chandra and others vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi and another). The predecessor of the opposite parties namely late Ganesh Prasad was tenant in the accommodation in question. However, the opposite parties had taken possession of the adjoining premises described in schedule (?-1), taking advantage of the dispute between the co-sharers. The applicants/landlord, however, have no concern with the accommodation mentioned at schedule (?-1). The first floor of the accommodation in question is needed for the residence of applicant no. 3 namely Hari Nath and his family. The families of three brothers namely Ram Chandra Prasad, Prabhu Nath Prasad and Hari Nath Prasad, sons of Ram Khelawan Ram, are residing at the first floor of one house existing in Chowk, Station Road (Mahatma Gandhi Marg), Ballia. At the ground floor of the said house, there are shops in possession of the applicants and their tenants. The accommodation in possession of the family of three applicants is insufficient and further as the family has grown with the passage of time, the relationship between the family members has strained, as a result of which the applicant no. 3 Hari Nath Prasad along with his family wanted to shift to the disputed house.

3. The release application was contested by Sri Shyam Das, the opposite party no. 1. The ground taken therein was that the father of the opposite parties namely Sri Ganesh Prasad was tenant of the entire first floor of the house which exist in Block No. 1, Ward No. 17, Nagar Palika Parishad, Ballia. The boundaries of the house given at the foot of the release application are not disputed. However, it is wrongly stated in the release application that in a portion of the first floor mentioned in schedule (?-1) of the release application, Mathura Lal was the tenant, earlier. In fact, this portion of the house was also in the tenancy of Ganesh Prasad, the father of the opposite parties. It is further stated that only Shyam Das had inherited the tenancy as his brother Ghanshyam Das had shifted to his own house much earlier, even during the lifetime of their father.

4. Further the genuineness of the need of the landlord was contested on the ground that he had concealed correct details of his family members and gave different names of his family members at different places. The averments in the release application, therefore, are doubtful and are liable to be rejected on this ground alone. The requirement of applicant no. 3, Hari Nath Prasad to shift in the disputed house, has been objected on the ground that the applicants possess sufficient residential accommodation and they are peacefully living in one house in Chowk, Station Road, Ballia.

5. It appears that during the pendency of the release, Shyam Das the contesting tenant died. His heirs were brought on record and they filed their separate written statement before the Prescribed Authority. In the affidavit filed before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner namely Sajal Kumar Jauhari son of Shyam Das disputed the need of the landlord on