DILIP GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE tenants have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 24th March, 2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which 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 accommodation, was allowed. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 8th December, 2011 by which the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 22 of the Act for setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority was dismissed.
(2.) THE need set up by the landlord, who is an Advocate practicing in the District Court at Agra, in the application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, was additional accommodation for residence and for setting up his chamber. The applicant stated that the drawing room was being used for attending his clients and keeping his law books and journals and not only was it not suitable but at times also caused embarrassment. It was also stated that his married sister also visited the applicant and space was needed for her as well as for the family friends, relatives and guests. The tenanted portion was, therefore, bona fide required by the applicant so that after obtaining possession, he would renovate, restructure, remodel and revamp the existing accommodation to meet the requirement for his residence and the chamber. It was also stated that the applicant was likely to suffer greater hardship in case the application was not allowed. The tenants filed a reply stating that the landlord did not bona fide require the tenanted portion as there was enough space with the landlord for his office and his family members. It was also stated that the tenants were likely to suffer greater hardship if the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was allowed. The Prescribed Authority, on a consideration of the materials available on record, came to the conclusion that the applicant bona fide required the tenanted accommodation and the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship. The Appellate Authority has confirmed these findings of the Prescribed Authority and has, therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by the tenants. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the same submissions as were advanced before the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. It is his submission that in case the landlord thought that additional space for his chamber was required then the landlord could utilise the open space in front of his accommodation for constructing his chamber. It is also his submission that the tenants are residing in khaprail and a tin-shed which would not be suitable for the landlord for the residence or for establishing his chamber. He has also submitted that the tenants are not in a position to find out alternative accommodation and, as such, the comparative hardship was in favour of the tenants.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the landlord has, however, submitted that the landlord cannot be compelled to raise additional construction on the open piece of land and that the accommodation available with the tenants was bona fide required by the landlord for not only establishing his chamber but also for catering to the need of his sister and his guests, who often visited him. It is also his submission that looking to the large practice of the applicant, it was essential for him to have an independent chamber since at present he is utilising the drawing room as his chamber. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for for the parties. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, on a consideration of the materials available on record, have came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was bona fide. Nothing has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners which may show that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse. Indeed, the need of an Advocate to have his own independent chamber is a bona fide need and the tenants cannot insist that the landlord should raise additional construction on the open piece of land available in front of his accommodation to cater to this need.;