Murlidhar, J. - (1.)These are two petitions by the landlord arising out of a proceeding under Sec. 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) for release of three small shops abutting the main road.
(2.)The brief relevant facts are these : The three shops are approximately 8'x 7' each. The middle one is occupied by Ram Kishan respondent of writ petition no. 2329 of 1977 and the corner shop ones were occupied by Behari Lal respondent of writ petition no. 2335 of 1977 and one Mohammad Hanif respectively. Behind these shops lie three more or less equal sized portions described during the proceeding as Nikas gallery and Baithak. It is common ground that there is a lane on the side of the building on which Bahori Lal's shop is situate so that the small Baithak behind Bahori Lal's shop opens into this lane. Behind this Baithak there is another larger Baithak opening into the lane. Rest of the building consists of the residential portion occupied by the landlord. The landlord retired after having served as a primary school teacher and the family consists of himself and his wife. The property belongs to his wife. She sought release of the three shops on the ground that after retirement he wanted to start a private primary school in the premises. Pending proceedings one corner shop of Mohd. Hanif fell vacant and was released in his favour. As regards the two other shops, the Prescribed Authority found in the landlord's favour and passed an eviction order. The two tenants filed appeals. The District Judge as appellate authority has held that there was sufficient accommodation for starting the school and there was no bona fide requirement for the two shops at present. He, however, observed that such requirement may arise in future if the school "starts going in a big way" and in that case "the landlady can always move a fresh application upon such ground." The appellate authority also found the test of comparative hardship to operate in favour of the tenants.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the finding on the question of bona fide requirement on two grounds : firstly that it is based on misreading of documents and secondly that the splitting and phasing of landlord's need in the circumstances of this case was manifestly erroneous and resulted from a wrong approach to the role of Prescribed and Appellate Authority in proceedings under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Act. There appears to be substance in both these contentions.