Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.

The instant writ petition is directed against the orders dated 18.12.2007 and 12.11.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority and order dated 15.1.2010 passed by the appellate court. By order dated 18.12.2007, the Prescribed Authority, in course of deciding an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act') rejected the application 45-Ga filed by the petitioner-tenant for inspection of various properties belonging to the respondent-landlord. By order dated 12.11.2008, the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application, and by order dated 15.1.2010, the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 22 of the Act has been dismissed.

2. The need set up by the respondent-landlord in the release application was that he required the tenanted premises comprising of two rooms on ground floor and one room on first floor for residential need of his family. It was alleged that the house in which he is living, opposite the tenanted premises, comprises of five rooms only apart from other amenities. His family comprises of himself, his wife, his married son Sarvesh Kumar, his wife and one unmarried son Shishir Kumar. The accommodation in his possession is insufficient to meet the residential need of his family members. His younger son is occupying a room near his bed room, disturbing his privacy. He also needs a drawing room and a guest room for visitors. Apart from it, the relationship between his wife and daughter-in-law is strained, which is disturbing the peace and harmony of the family. Therefore, after release of the tenanted premises, he would shift his son Sarvesh Kumar and daughter-in-law to the said premises and the room vacated by them would be used by his younger son, who would be married in near future.

3. The release application was contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing an objection inter-alia contending that the house in possession of the landlord bearing No. C/127/346 comprises of eight rooms and two halls, not five rooms, as alleged in the release application; that the respondent-landlord also owns house No. C/127/350 which comprises of two rooms, latrine bath-room on the ground floor and two rooms, latrine bath-room on the first floor. The said house remains locked; that he also owns one more house in the name of his wife bearing No. C/127/272, which after demolition has been re-constructed. In other words, the specific case of the petitioner-tenant was that respondent-landlord owns three other houses apart from the tenanted premises in the same locality and thus, the accommodation in his possession is much more than his alleged need.

4. During pendency of the release application, the petitioner filed an application 45-C for inspection of all four buildings including the disputed premises. It was specifically stated in the said application that recently the respondent-landlord had demolished the building owned by his wife and had constructed a new two storied building in its place and construction of the third floor is also going to be started. It was also stated in the application that in order to ascertain the exact number of rooms in each building owned by the landlord, it is necessary to get an inspection carried out. However, the application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 18.12.2007 and thereafter, as noted above, the Prescribed Authority proceeded to allow the release application by order dated 12.11.2008.

5. The Prescribed Authority has observed that the specific case of the respondent-landlord in the release application was that relationship of his wife with the daughter-in-law is strained. The Prescribed Authority, thereafter referred to certain judgments of this Court in which it is held that in case relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law is strained, it would constitute a valid ground to seek release of the tenanted accommodation. However, thereafter, without recording any clear cut finding th