The appellate authority's finding of bonafide and genuine need for additional accommodation by the landlord, and its decision to release one room out of the two rooms on the ground floor in favor of the landlord, were reasonable and supported by the facts and circumstances of the case.

A.B. Srivastava, J.

Both these writ it petitions are interconnected, in so far as these are directed against the same judgment and order. By his order, dated 21-8-1986, the respondent No.1, Additional District Judge, Kanpur, in an appeal, u/s 22 of Act 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred as the Act' partly allowed and partly rejected at release application, filed by the landlord. While the Writ Petition No.19690 of 1986 has been preferred by the tenant, Writ Petition No.19994 of 1986, by the landlord.

2. The release application was filed by the landlord Majid Husain, hereinafter referred as the landlord, for eviction of the tenant Mohd Sadiq, hereinafter referred as the tenant, in respect of a portion of House No. 79/117 Bans Mandi, Kanpur. Admittedly, both the landlord and the tenant are residing in two portions of the House No. 79/117 Bans Mandi. Kanpur. The allegation in the release application was to the effect that the ground floor portion of the said house, consisting of two rooms, three kothris, two verandahs, besides kitchen, bath and latrine, was in the possession of the tenant on Rs. 9.37 rent, whereas, the first floor, consisting of two rooms, three kothris, two verandahs, kitchen and lavatory, is in the occupation of the landlord and his family. The family of the landlord consisted, besides him, of his wife, four sons and five daughters, total eleven. Two of the sons are employed and two sons and two daughters were under education. The accommodation in the occupation of the landlord and his family is quite insufficient for their needs of proper living and proper studies of the children. The marriage of the grown-up sons is also due. Accordingly, the landlord's requirement of the portion in the occupation of the tenant is genuine, bona-fide and pressing. The petition was contested by the tenant with allegation that more accommodation than that alleged in the release application is in the possession of the landlord and his family, and the same is quite sufficient for their needs. The marriage of none of the petitioners sons has been settled and the alleged requirement on account of the same does not exist. The tenant is a man of low income and his son also does not earn enough. His family consists, besides him, of his wife and three children also, as such, they will suffer hardship if the release is allowed.

3. The Prescribed Authority by his judgment and order, dated, 3-8-1982, rejected the release application. On appeal preferred u/s 22 of the Act by the landlord, the learned appellate authority allowed release of one room out of the two rooms on the ground floor in favour of the landlord while upholding the rejection of the prayer of release in respect of the rest of the accommodation in possession of the tenant. While the tenant has challenged the release of part of accommodation, the landlord has challenged the refusal to release the rest.

4. These petitions filed as far back in 1986, have not so far been admitted. Since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties in these writ petitions in accordance with the Rules of the Court, these are being finally disposed of at admission stage.

5. The contention on behalf of the tenant in these writ petitions is that the appellate authority without recording specific finding about bonafide requirement of the landlord and his family was not justified in releasing part of the accommodation and that he has wrongly stated in the judgment that the tenant agreed to vacate one room out of the accommodation in his possession. The contention of the other side is that from the facts and records as well as the observations of the appellate authority, the bonafide requirement of the landlord is fully established and the total accommodation in the possession of the tenant should have been released. It has also been contended that there was a clear offer during the proceedings before the appellate authority on behalf of the tenant by his Counsel, that he was willing to spare o