- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Sri Gopal Chandra Mukherjee (landlord) respondent has filed application for release of the shop in question under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act ). This application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 25-9- 1993. The petitioner (tenant) filed an appeal. In this appeal he filed an application for taking additional evidence on record. This application was rejected on 12-2-1993. Thereafter the tenant's appeal was rejected on 1-1- 1994. Hence the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, Counsel for the tenant and Sri Maneesh Nigam, Counsel for the landlord. Sri Tandon submits that : The tenant had released part of inner portion of the shop which could be utilised by the landlord. The tenant wanted that this fact may be taken into account while deciding the appeal. The order dated 2-2-1993 rejecting the application to take this additional evidence is illegal and as such the order dated 1-1- 1994 dismissing the appeal is illegal. Sri Nigam Counsel for the landlord submits that : The application of the tenant-petitioner was rightly rejected. No portion was vacated by the tenant for the use of landlord. In any case the Appellate Court has considered this accommodation. In view of this order calls for no interference. The Appellate Court has rejected the application to take additional evidence on the following findings : "neither in the W. S. nor in the affidavits filed before the P. A. the appellant had alleged that the inner portion of the shop in question was got vacated from the appellant-tenant for carrying out business and the said portion was separated by constructing a wall. The appellant has not assigned any reason why the appellant could not file the affidavit prior to January, 1995. The application is not bona fide. "
(3.) THE appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the tenant also considered this alternative accommodation. This alternative accommodation was shown as letter 'i' and 'ii' in the map prepared by the Commissioner. THE Appellate Court has recorded following finding in this regard : "the alternative accommodation suggested by the learned Counsel for the appellant is show in by letters `i' and `ii' in the map (27 C/3), prepared by Sri V. K. Chaudhary Advocate Commissioner. THEse rooms had got no opening outside. Room No. `i' opens in the shop in dispute towards the west and Room No. `ii' in the east. Similarly Room No. `ii' opens in Room No. `i' and inner house without modification these rooms cannot be used as shop. " "the learned Counsel then contended that there is 74 feet wide Gali towards the north and these rooms can be utilised as shop by opening doors towards the Gali. In my opinion no one can be compelled to use residential portion as his shop. THE landlord must have been using these rooms for living purpose. It would not be proper to compel a man to use his room as shop causing inconvenience to his family members. It was held in G. P. Rastogiv. 8th Additional District Judge, 1990 (16) ALR 766, that the landlord cannot be expected to live, nor can be required to mould his needs according to the wishes of the tenant. " In view of this there is no justification to interfere with this order on this ground. The Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Court has held that the need of the landlord is bona fideand greater hardship will occasion in case application is rejected. There is no illegality in the same. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed. However, the petitioner be not evicted from the premises for the period of nine months provided he files an undertaking in the form of affidavit within one month before Prescribed Authority that he will handover peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord within nine months and will also pay the rent for the period of his occupation. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;