- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order or the Prescribed Authority dated 25-1-1999 releasing the disputed shop in favour of the landlord-respondent and the order dated 12-1-2000 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, are that an application for release was filed under Sec tion 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) by the landlord-respondent against the petitioner with the allegations that Ahmad Hasan was owner-landlord of the shop in question. He was carrying on 'barbar' business. He died and after his death one of his sons, namely Mohammad Hasan is carrying on 'barbar' business. His second son Rashid is unemployed. He wants to carry on business of wood-carv ing. The tenant- petitioner has a sweet meat shop. He has residential house ad joining to the shop in question and can shift his business there on the ground floor portion. The petitioner contested the ap plication. It was denied that the third son of the landlord, namely Rashid requires the shop for wood carving. He has no knowledge and experience with the work of wood carving. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that Rashid requires the shop in question for carrying on the work of wood carving in the disputed shop and on comparative hardship, it was found that in case the application is rejected, the landlord-respondent would suffer a greater hardship. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the same has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by the im pugned order dated 12-1-2000. I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate for the contesting respondents.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding on the question of the hardship, which the tenant petitioner will suffer in case he is evicted. It is urged that the petitioner had taken all possible efforts to find out alternative accommoda tion but as he failed to get an alternative accommodation, no inference can be drawn against him. It is further submitted that the authorities below have assumed that there were other accommodations available to the petitioner but he failed to shift his business in such accommodation and thirdly, the observation of the Appel late Authority that the petitioner has a residential houses, adjacent to the dis puted shop and would be able to carry on business there is erroneous in law. In Mst. Bega Begum and others v. Abdul Ahad Khan and others, 1978 AWC 702, it has been held that the mere fact that the tenant is to be evicted, shall not be a ground for rejecting the application of the landlord when it is found that the need of the landlord is bona fide. The son of the landlord-respondent is unemployed and wants to carry on business in the disputed shop while the petitioner has sweet-meat shop and is carrying on business for long time and he can find out further alternative accommodation to carry on business if an accommodation is not available which is governed by the Act. On the perusal of the impugned orders, I do not find that the findings recorded by the authorities below are erroneous in law. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under the second proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to get two years' rent as compensation but the authorities below have illegally rejected such claim. It is true that the said provision is not mandatory to accept the claim of the tenant regarding compensation, the authorities below must gave a cogent reason for not awarding damages under the second proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The mere fact that the landlord is poor or his earning is not sufficient to pay the two years' rent, is itself no ground to reject the claim of the tenant to receive the compensation. The accommodation in question shall be vacated by the petitioner only when the landlord deposits two years' rent before the Prescribed Authority as provided in second proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. In case, however, the petitioner files affidavit that he would va cate within a year, the landlord shall deposit rent only for one year and the tenant shall not be obliged to pay rent to landlord for the period he remains in pos session in pursuance of undertaking given by him.;