Shishir Kumar, J.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 2.12.2008 and 6.11.2004, Annexures 8 and 6 respectively to the writ petition.
The landlordrespondents filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in the year 1996. The Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 6.11.2004 has allowed the release application holding therein that the need of the respondentlandlord is bona fide and genuine. The appeal filed by the petitioners has been rejected confirming the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority has not considered the fact that petitioners will suffer more loss than the respondentslandlord as they are having sufficient accommodation for the residential purposes. Various documents submitted by the petitioners have not been taken into account.
I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and respondents. From the perusal of the order passed by the courts below it is clear that the application was filed in the year 1996 and that was kept pending and has been decided in 2004. A finding has been recorded that landlord is having two rooms, 2 Kotharis, 1 kitchen, latrine and bath room. The family members of the landlord are 12.. Further finding has been recorded that from 1996 till the pendency of the application i.e. up to 2004, the petitioners have not made any effort to get any alternative accommodation. Further a finding has been considered that at the time of filing the application, some family members were minor but now they have become major, therefore, the requirement for living separately for them is necessary. In the case of Nar Singh Das Agrawal Vs. District Judge, Ballia (2004 (1) CLR Page 245) this Court has held that the tenant has got no right to say that the need of the landlord can be satisfied with the accommodation in his possession. At the time of consideration of the requirement of the landlord, it is necessary to consider regarding the requirement of the landlord. Nobody can be compelled to live in his accommodation according to choice of others. Landlord is free to live in his accommodation out of his own will and no law can direct for him to live in such a manner. A finding has been recorded that the petitioner is working in the Water Works, Nagar Palika and certain quarters are there, as such, he can live there. Document regarding having accommodation nearby Hathras has not been disputed but it has been proved that the petitioner is having such accommodation and his name is recorded in the Voter List.
In view of the aforesaid fact I find that the courts below after considering the evidence on record have found that the need of the landlord is more genuine than the petitioners The Apex Court has held that bona fide of the tenant has to be seen regarding searching out the alternative accommodation during the pendency of the application but from the record it also appears that inspite of the fact that the application filed by the respondents is pending from 1996 and within a period of 8 years, during the pendency of the present application, no document or pleading has been made by the petitioners for searching out any alternative accommodation. In the case of Rajendra Kumar and others Vs. Gopal Prasad (AIR 1995 Allahabad Page 82) this Court has held that it has to be proved by the tenant that inspite of the best effort no alternative accommodation has been obtained before the court below. If that has not been done, then it cannot be said that the need of the tenant is more genuine.
In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the writ petition and the writ potion is hereby dismissed.
At the last learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some reasonable time may be granted to petitioners to vacate the said premises. It is provided that in case the petitioners submit an application with an affidavit undertaking this fact before the prescribed Authority that they will vacate the said premises and hand over peaceful possession to the landlordrespondents without inducting any third person, then the Prescribed Authority will consider the same and grant them six months'' time to vacate the said premises. The arrears of rent,if any, which is to be paid by the petitioners to the respondentlandlord be paid by 31.1.2009 and the rent for a period of six months will be paid by the petitioners before the vacation of the said accommodation.
No order is passed as to costs.
