Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.)HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents even in the revised list. The present writ petition has been filed at the instance of tenant and it arises out of proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in respect of a room in house No. 134, Nai Basti, Jhansi wherein the petitioner is tenant at the rate of Rs. 10/ - p.m. An application for releasing the aforesaid accommodation was filed by the respondent No. 1 landlord on the ground that his need for the disputed room is bonafide. His case was that the tenant has already got another accommodation in the name of his wife. The release application was ultimately allowed by the Prescribed Authority by the judgment and order dated 14.7.1992. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No. 38 of 1992. During the pendency of the said appeal an Application No. 35 -B for admitting additional evidence was filed on 4.2.1993. Alongwith the said application, the petitioner filed certified copy of the judgment of Civil Court wherein the sale deed in favour of the petitioner's wife was cancelled. The said document was taken on record by way of additional evidence. The necessary averments have been made in this regard in paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition. The said assertions have not been denied, in the counter affidavit. Only this much have been stated that it is a matter of record and needs no comments. The Appellate Court by the impugned judgment dated 9.3.1994 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The finding of family members of the landlord respondents consists of six persons and the accommodation in possession of the landlord which he got in pursuant of decree No. 194 of 1979 is insufficient. The Appellate Court also took into consideration the fact that the tenant has purchased house No. 135 on the name of his wife where he got constructed three rooms.
(2.)LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the incharge of Court below is perverse inasmuch as it has failed to consider the judgment of Civil Court in Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1993 (Smt. Beni Bai v. Bhagwan Devi) dated 9.3.1994 wherein the sale deed in favour of the petitioner's wife has been cancelled and the suit for declaration that the sale deed is invalid, stood decreed.
I find sufficient force in the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The additional evidence was taken on record by the Court below and it was therefore incumbent upon him to have considered the same before recording findings against the petitioner. Apart from the above the Appellate Court has disposed of the matter in a very cursory manner without discussing the extent of accommodation in possession of the landlord. There is no discussion on the question of comparative hardship of the parties. In view of the above the impugned order dated 9.3.1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority Jhansi cannot be sustained.

(3.)THE writ petition is allowed. The order dated 9.3.1994 is hereby set aside and matter is restored back to the District Judge, Jhansi, to decide the matter in the light of the material available on record. Looking to the facts, that the rent of Rs. 10/ - p.m. is no rent, the petitioner is directed to pay a reasonable amount of rent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the disputed accommodation is only one room accommodation and has no other facilities. Petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/ - p.m. as rent for the period commencing 2007 during the continuance of tenancy to the respondent -landlord.