In eviction proceedings under U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the court will consider the bona fide need of the landlord, the comparative hardship of the parties, and the genuineness of the sub-letting.

J.K. MATHUR, J.

1. This petition challenges the orders passed by the prescribed authority under U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and the order passed by the Additional District Judge in appeal.

2. The opposite parties 3 and 4 are the owners of the property 8/8/4, nazool No. 196 in chak No. 14 in raohalla Dal Mandi, Faizabad. According to them, the house belonged to Smt. Basiran and they purchased it for Rs. 15,000/- on 16-2-1978. The Petitioner No. 1 was a tenent of the property at Rs. 15/- per month as rent. He, it is alleged, sub-let a part of the property to Maqool. The condition of the house is dilapidated but the tenants did not permit it to be inspected. The opposite parties claimed that they had no other accommodation in their possession and were living with one Mohammad Siddiq. It is also stated that the Petitioner had also purchased another house. A notice was given to the tenants which was answered by them.

3. The tenants contested this petition. According to them both Nisar Ahmad and Maqbool were tenants of the property even curing the life time of Smt. Basiran and had been issued receipts on her behalf. They contested that the landlord required the accommodation for himself and that the house was dilapidated. According to them the Petitioner No. 1 had purchased a house in 1971, which was let out.

4. Parties produced evidence before the prescribed authority. It found that the landlord required the property bona fide for his own use; that the house had been sub let to Maqbool and, therefore, the landlords had the comparative need in their favour. The application was, therefore, allowed.

5. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge after detailed discussion of the contentions raised confirmed the decision given by the prescribed authority.

6. The present petition has not been filed against these decisions. Firstly it has been alleged that the evidence clearly showed that the Petitioners were tenants in house, ft was also urged that they had not been permitted to cross examine. Yunus and that the admission made by Smt. Basiran was not considered. It was also urged that there was no bona fide need by the landlord and the application had been wrongly allowed.

7. The question of Maqbool being a sub-tenant in this case is relevant for determining whether the tenants had need of the accommodation for their own use. The landlords alleged that the house had been sub let by Nisar Ahmad who alone was tenant.

8. The tenants on the other hand claim that both Nisar Ahmad and Maqbool had been tenants in the property.

9. The trial court discussed the evidence in detail and concluded that the evidence produced by tenants for the tenancy of Maqbool was not reliable. This finding of fact was confirmed by the appellate court. There is no reason for this Court in this writ petition to reassess the entire evidence with a view to determine the factum of Maqbool being a sub-tenant having been proved or not. The receipts filed on behalf of the tenants were held to have been disproved by the statement of Yusuf, the person who is alleged to have signed these receipts.

10. In this regard it was urged on behalf of Petitioners that they were not given opportunity to cross examine this witness.

11. For this cogent reasons have been given by the appellate authority. It is not disputed that cross-examination can be permitted only if it is found to be essential or necessary in the circumstances of the case. The appellate authority has given the specific reasons whereby such cross-examination was not necessary as there was no other evidence at all produced on behalf of tenants to show that the receipts were genuine.

12. The discretion vesting in the court having been exercised after consideration of the valid criteria, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion. It may also be mentioned that the other two pieces of evidence, namely, the municipal record and the alleged acceptance of rent were also no