- (1.) The landlords have filed this petition for quashing the judgment and order dated 9th April, 2010 by which the Appeal filed by the tenant for setting aside the order dated 9th November, 2006 of the Prescribed Authority allowing the application filed by the landlord under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for release of the shop, was allowed and the order dated 9th November, 2006 passed by the Prescribed Authority was set aside. The landlords had filed the application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act on 22nd August, 2003 for release of the tenanted shop with the allegation that Rajeev Kumar - (opposite party No. 1 and respondent No. 1 in this petition) was the tenant of the shop which was purchased by them by registered sale-deed dated 8th August, 2000 from Rajesh Kumar (proforma opposite party No. 2 in the release application and proforma respondent No. 2 in this petition); that the applicants were unemployed and wanted to start their independent business and for this purpose they sent a notice dated 18th April, 2001 to the tenant by registered post informing him that they had become the landlords of the shop and they require it for their bona fide need; that the tenant was not doing any business from the shop and had kept it locked; that the tenant had two other shops from where he was doing business and that the landlords were likely to suffer greater hardship in case the shop was not released. The tenant filed objections stating that his father was a tenant in the shop since 1950 and after his death in 1994 he became the tenant; that on 2nd October, 2003 the applicants pulled down the shop and a report to this effect was also lodged in the Police Station but the tenant continued to do business from the tenanted portion by putting a plastic sheet cover; that since the shop did not exist, it could not be bona fide required by the landlords; that the landlords had two other shops from where they could satisfy their needs; that the tenant was not doing business from the shop at Azad Nagar owned by Shailendra Singh and that his brother who was separately living, was doing business from this shop and that the tenant was also not doing business from the shop owned by Gulab Singh.
(2.) The Prescribed Authority found that the landlords had not demolished the tenanted shop but the shop which was in a bad condition had fallen down due to heavy rains and the applicants who were educated unemployed and sitting idle needed the tenanted shop to start their business particularly when applicant No. 1 was married and had two children and the tenant had not made any effort to search out any alternative accommodation after the filing of the release application by the landlords. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, allowed the application filed by the landlords by the order dated 9th November, 2006 holding that the landlords bona fide required the shop for doing business and that the landlords were likely to suffer greater hardship in case the shop was not released.
(3.) This order of the Prescribed Authority was assailed by the tenant by filing an Appeal under section 22 of the Act. This Appeal was initially allowed by the judgment and order dated 25th July, 2008 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority. This order was assailed by the landlords in Writ Petition No. 45912 of 2008 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 17th February, 2009 for the reason that the Appellate Court itself could decide the matter since evidence was available on the record. The judgment and order dated 17th February, 2009 is quoted below: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondents have not cared to appear. The service is deemed to be complete on them. The present writ petition has been filed by landlord against an order passed by District Judge, dated 25.7.2008 by which he has remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for reconsideration by stating that three issues have not been decided by the Prescribed Authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the entire material and evidence was on record before the Appellate Court and he could have very well determined those issues as well as other issues relating to the dispute and there was no occasion to remand the matter to the Court below. Three issues according to the appellate authority, which have been not decided, was the issue of giving the notice of the landlord to the tenant in accordance with the provisions of 21(1)(a), second issue was with regard to the landlord having two other shops for his use and the third issue was the tenant's having three other shops for his use. Since the entire material was on record before the appellate authority, learned Counsel for the petitioner is justified in saying that the matter may be decided by the appellate authority itself. Accordingly, the order dated 25.7.2008 is set aside and the appellate authority is directed to decide all these three issues itself in accordance with law expeditiously after giving both the parties an opportunity of hearing preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is being placed before it. The writ petition is thus allowed.;