Prakash Krishna, J.Residential premises No. 119/547 Darshan Purwa, Kanpur is the property in question of which the petitioner is the landlord who filed a release application in the year 1983 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the following four different tenants :

1. Raja Ram, 2. Siya Ram, 3. Sardar Singh, 4. Kamleshwar

2. The petitioner pleaded in the release application that he has a large family which consists of himself, his wife, Satish Chandra, son aged about 30 years, Harish Chand, son aged about 24 years, Manish Chand, son, aged about 20 years, daughter Kumari Kusum aged about 26 years and mother. The release application was filed in the year 1983 and by now 25 years have gone. It was pleaded that he is residing alongwith his family members in two living rooms adjoining each other and has no kitchen, drawing room etc. and he is sharing common latrine with the tenants.

3. The release application was contested by the tenants principally on the ground that they have no alternative accommodation and they will be thrown on the street if the release application is allowed. The extent of accommodation in the possession of the landlord and his family members was not disputed. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 25th of September, 1985 found that the landlord has got eight family members and residing in two rooms and there is paucity of accommodation with him and he needs additional accommodation. But it was rejected on the consideration that each of the opposite parties has got not more than two rooms and they will come on street if the release application is allowed. The said order was challenged in appeal by the landlord being Rent Appeal No. 206 of 1985. The appeal was allowed by the Court below on 3rd of February, 1988 against all the tenants except Raja Ram, initially. This was challenged in Writ Petition No. 10941 of 1988 in this Court by Siya Ram, respondent No. 2, herein. The writ petition was allowed on 11th of September, 1990 and the matter was resorted back to the Appellate Court to rehear and redecide the appeal. After remand the matter was reheard. The Appellate Court this time dismissed the appeal by the impugned order against Siya Ram which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. A perusal of the release application shows that the landlord was working as Supervisor in the Ordinance Factory in the department of Inspectorate of Armaments and has got some status in life. He has got friends and relatives. It was also stated that he needs at least one drawing room, one provision and store room, one kitchen and three bed rooms vide para 5 of the release application and para 6 of the affidavit accompanying to the release application. His son Satish was graduate at the time of filing of the release application and was employed in Daily Newspaper Daily Jagaran. He has got his own society. The other son Harish Chandra who was carrying on general merchandise business in the shop facing the roadside of premises in question was of the marriageable age at that time. At the time of filing of release application the landlord had got only two rooms adjoining each other and there was no kitchen or separate latrine or drawing room. He was sharing common latrine with other tenants of the building.

6. The Appellate Court has rejected release application without recording any specific finding that the need of landlord is not bona fide and genuine. The Appellate Court has proceeded to decide the appeal on the footing that the landlord has got some accommodation which has been vacated by the outgoing tenants. It has already been pointed out that the release application was filed against four tenants and it was dismissed finally against Raja Ram. Out of remaining three tenants-Siya Ram, respondent No. 3, herein, challenged the said order in the High Court and is presently contesting the release application. Thus, the petitioner-landlord got accommodation which was in possession of remaining two tenants namely Sardar Singh and Kameshwar. Sardar Singh was in occupation of one room and one Verandah which has come in the occupation and possession of petitioners who is living along with his family. Kameshwar was in possession of one room which is being used by the petitioner as kitchen. The accommodation which fell vacant on account of the death of Pujari has fallen to earth. The other accommodation is in possession of Raja Ram. There is no bathroom on the ground-floor.

7. The Appellate Court has found that the family of landlord consists of self, his wife, mother, three sons and one unmarried daughter. One son has got married and daughter has also been married. The Appellate Court in para 15 found that the landlord has got three rooms and one shop at ground floor and two rooms, tin shed covered Verandah which is being used as kitchen and alleged Kothari 10 x 10 and four Bhandariya on the first floor. His family consists of one married son, two unmarried sons, wife and mother.

8. The Appellate Court has not taken into account the requirement of the landlord so far as drawing room and dining room is concerned.

9. The alleged Kothari 10 x 10 is an enclosure on a part of courtyard and there is a staircase for second floor, as found by the Commissioner in this report. As per the said report, looking to their dimensions and location in the building, they cannot be used for living purposes. One Bhandariya as found is 3- x 3 beneath the staircase, the second one is 5 x 3 and height about 4 at the end of the stair. The Commissioner has not reported that these two Bhandariyas are in possession or use of landlord. The other three Bhandariyas which were fourld in possession of landlord, has been reported by the Commissioner are not fit for residence because of low ceiling. Their dimensions are 9 x 4 and 5 in height. Thus, the total accommodation for residential purposes in possession of landlord is three rooms on the ground-floor and two rooms on the first floor. There is no proper space for kitchen. It is being used on a part of courtyard by covering it over an area of 12-x 7. Looking to the extent of accommodation in possession of landlord now question arises the need set up by the landlord for additional accommodation can be termed as bona fide need or not. It is clear that even the Appellate Court has not found that the landlord has any drawing room, dining room or a kitchen of permanent nature. He is sharing iatrine facility with other tenants. The family of the landlord consists of two married couples, himself and his one married sons family. In this factual background, the phrase "bona fide required" occurring in Section 21(1)(a) of theNo. 13 of 1972 has to be interpreted.

10. In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chandra Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222 [LQ/SC/1999/664] : 1999 SCFBRC 330, it has been held that phrase "requires bona fidd is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradiction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the par of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Once the Court is satisfied of the bona fides of the need of the landlord for the premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing one or more then one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the Court. The Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proved need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the Court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.

11. In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119 [LQ/SC/1998/1047] , it has been held that the Rent Controller should not proceed on the assumption that the landlords requirement is not bona fide. When the landlord shows a prima facie case a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide is liable to be drawn. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.

12. It has been held in the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta (supra) that convenience and safety of landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. While considering the totality of circumstance, the Court may keeping in view of the profession and vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, habits and social background wherefrom they come. If a landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself tightly into lesser premises protecting the tenants occupancy.

13. In M.L. Prabhakar v. Rajiv Singhal, 2001 (1) ARC 382 [LQ/SC/2001/34] , the Apex Court has followed its judgment pronounced in Shiv Sarup Guptas case.

14. Regavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Company, (2000) 1 SCC 679 [LQ/SC/2000/38] : 2000 SCFBRC 24, is an authority for the proposition that the landlord is the best Judge of his own requirement for residential or commercial purpose and has complete freedom in the matter. In this authority the Apex Court has relied upon its earlier judgment in Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353 [LQ/SC/1987/300] .

15. In Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behai, (2002) 5 SCC 397 [LQ/SC/2002/643 ;] ">(2002) 5 SCC 397 [LQ/SC/2002/643 ;] [LQ/SC/2002/643 ;] : 2002 SCFBRC 388, the Apex Court with a reference to the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, on the question of bona fide need, after surveying its earlier pronouncements, has held that the requirement of a major son and a coparcener in a Joint Hindu family intending to start a business is the requirement of the landlord himself as was held in B. Balaiah v. Chandoor Lachaiah, AIR 1965 AP 435 [LQ/TelHC/1965/9] . The words "for his own use" must receive a wide, liberal and useful meaning rather than a strict or narrow construction. It has been further held that while casting its judicial verdict, the Court should adopt a practical and meaningful approach guided by the realities of life.

16. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is but obvious that the Court below have not taken into account the social status of the landlord and his living condition. The landlord was working as Supervisor in the Ordinance Factory. His two sons are also independently engaged. In the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta (supra), the Apex Court has held that if the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not compel or command him to squeeze tightly into lesser premises protecting tenants occupancy. The need for proper kitchen and separate latrine for the family members of the landlord is the basic amenities to live and necessary for comfortable living. It was not correct on the part of the Appellate Court to reject the release application on the ground that even if the landlord is permitted to use a latrine on the ground floor, it will not make any difference to the landlord as he will have to continue the sharing the latrine with his tenant on the first floor. This is not the correct approach while considering the bona fide requirement of landlord, as laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred above. The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta (supra) has observed as follows :

"A drawing room, a kitchen, a living room and garage are the bare necessities for a comfortable living."

17. The said observation has been quoted from the case of M. L. Prabhakar (supra).

18. On the question of comparative hardship the release application was rejected only on the ground that if the tenant is asked to vacate the disputed accommodation he will come on the street. The Apex Court in the case of Bega Begum and others v. Abdul Ahad Khan, 1979 AIR SC 272 : 1986 SCFBRC 346, has said that in every case where an order of eviction is passed the tenant will come on the street. The fact that all tenants will come on street if eviction is ordered, is not at all relevant for consideration of a comparative hardship of the respective parties, it i for the tenant to find out alternative accommodation. In absence of any material to show that any attempt was made by the such tenant to find out alternative accommodation release application cannot be rejected on ground that such tenant would suffer greater hardship if the release application is

19. In view of the above discussion, the two orders of the Courts below suffer from manifest error of law and they cannot be sustained. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the release application filed by the petitioners against the respondent No. 3, Siya Ram stands allowed.

20. Three months time is granted to the respondent No. 3 to vacate the disputed accommodation and handover vacant possession to the landlord-respondent.

21. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.