- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Kailash Chand, tenant of the premises No. 24/3, E. C. Road, Dehradun has filed this petition under Article 226, Constitution of India challenging im pugned judgment and order dated March 13, 2000 by means of which Respondent No. I/appellate Authority (appointed under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act') allowed Rent Control Appeal No. 182 of 1998 filed by landlord/respon dent No. 2.
(2.) BRIEF facts, for the purposes of present case are that Ram Prasad Bhall. landlord/respondent No. 2 filed release application under Section 2. 1 (T) (a) of the Act (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) con tending, inter alia, amongst others that he required the aforementioned shop in the-tenancy of the petitioner on the ground to settle his son Dinesh Kumar. Parties were given opportunity as contemplated under law and thereafter prescribed authority rejected release application by means of the judgment and order dated September 18, 1998 (Annexure 17 to the writ peti tion ). The prescribed authority did not find favour with the case of the landlord. The prescribed authority held that need of the landlord was not bona fide nor the factor of comparative hardship was in his favour. Feeling aggrieved landlord Ram Prasad Bhatt filed Rent Control Appeal No. 182 of 1998 (Annexure 18 to the writ petition ). In para 5 of the appeal it was contended that the need of Dinesh Kumar ought to have been taken into account, who had taken up a job as stop gap arran gement during the pendency of the release application and his need should not have been ignored. During pendency of appeal, certain documents were again filed by the parties.
(3.) THE appellate authority, after hear ing the parties and considering the evidence on record, allowed the appeal by means of the impugned judgment and order dated March 13,2000. THE appellate authority held that the landlord had genuine and bona fide need of the accom modation in question because the case regarding extension of his business should not be disbelieved. Regarding comparative hardship, the appellate authority decided against the tenant primarily taking into account that tenant in his affidavit (Paper No. 12 Ga) had admitted that one of his sons Sanjay was allowed to carry on betel shop in a portion of the accommodation in ques tion. The appellate authority observed that in view of the said fact, ii was apparent that tenant did not require accommoda tion for vocation of washing cloths (Dhobi ).;