The landlord's need for release should be judged disparately, and the tenant cannot question and compel a landlord to live in a particular manner. The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and has complete freedom in the matter.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mrs. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present petition arises out of judgment and order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Mathura in Rent Control Appeal No. 05 of 2017.

3. Facts, in nutshell, are that plaintiff respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority which was registered as P.A. No. 53 of 2011 for releasing residential premises situated at Chatta Bazar, Holi wali Gali, Mathura from the defendant petitioner on the ground that the landlord being a follower of Vaishnav Sampradaya and a highly devoted person was not getting well alongwith his sons and daughter-in-laws, who were following the western culture and their eating habits was not matching to that of landlord, who is a purely vegetarian man. Further, it was also stated that the current residence at Krishna Nagar was far away causing inconvenience to the landlord respondent to discharge his religious obligations.

4. The release application was contested by the tenant petitioner on the ground that the need of the landlord was illusory and he had multiple properties at his disposal from where he can conveniently settle his needs. Moreover, the landlord was 71 years of age and being ill did not needed the accommodation in question. It was also stated that the accommodation was with the tenant petitioner since 1940 and landlord respondent was having three residential properties at Krishna Nagar, Mathura. Further, one of the son of the landlord was carrying on the business of utensils from the ground floor of the residential accommodation in question. On the first floor the tenant was in accommodation of one part which consisted of two rooms, kitchen and latrine bathroom while the landlord was having the other portion in which he can easily shift. It was also stated that the distance of river Yamuna from Krishna Nagar is only 3.5 Kilometers and not 7 Kilometers, as stated by the landlord.

5. After the exchange of pleadings and evidences filed by the parties the Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 rejected the release application filed by the landlord. Against the said order, Rent Control Appeal No. 05 of 2017 was filed before the District Judge, Mathura who vide judgment and order dated 27.09.2021 while setting aside the order of Prescribed Authority had allowed the release application of the landlord holding it to be bonafide and genuine. Hence, the present writ petition.

6. Mrs. Rama Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the tenant petitioner, raised three fold objections and submitted that the Appellate Court had not considered the provisions of Rule 16 (2) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Rules of 1972’) and while setting aside the order of Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Court failed to take note of the fact that the length of tenancy would greatly diminish a direction to vacate the tenanted premises since the tenant was in occupation of the building since the year 1940.

7. She secondly submitted that there was no bonafide and genuine need of the landlord as several evidences were pressed in by the tenant to establish that the landlord was in possession of several vacant accommodation which has not been denied and the distance of river Yamuna was not 7 Kilometers from Krishna Nagar as claimed by the landlord. Further, according to her, the release application was to be considered as a whole and no pleadings or grounds made therein had ever been withdrawn by the landlord and, thus, landlord cannot be given relaxation to the situation which goes totally against him. She next contended that the premises in dispute is situated at the first floor and staircase is only 1.5 feet wide and landlord being an old man with failing health cannot live in such congested are