K. M. Dayal, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The present petition has been filed by the tenant. An application under section 21 (1) (a) was moved by the landlord-respondent against the petitioner. The application was rejected by both the authorities.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority aswell as the appellate authority rejected the application of the landlord-respondent. A writ petition was filed by the landlord which was heard by another Single Judge of this Court, that judgment is Annexure '3' to the writ petition. From the judgment it appears that the case was remanded on the basis of an offer of alternative accommodation to the tenant. THE learned Judge held that if the offer of the petitioner was found to be genuine and reasonable, the tenant could be said to have an available and suitable alternative accommodation. After the remand the appellate authority found that there was an offer for another accommodation by the landlord. THE appellate authority passed the order in these terms : "THE appeal is allowed and the application under S. 21 given by the landlord for eviction of the tenant is allowed on condition that the shop marked X in the scale map is let out to the tenant Sri Ganeshi Lal. Sri Ganeshi Lal will move an application for allotment of this shop if necessary, within two months from today. If he fails to move the allotment application, the decree passed in this case shall be executed against him and in case he moved an application within the time allowed, the decree shall not be executable till he gets possession over the shop in accordance with law. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer is also advised to allot this shop to the tenant so that the litigation may come to an end. Parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal". The tenant has come up in writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as the shop was yet not available to the petitioner, the offer was not covered by clause (b) sub-Rule (2) of Rule 16 framed under the Act. The learned counsel relied upon a case in Anant Ram v. 2nd Addl. District Judge, 1977 Allahabad Rent Cases 415. In that case the eviction of the tenant was granted on the ground that an alternative accommodation was available and consequently the tenant was not entitled to retain the disputed shop. It was contended by the tenant in the writ petition that no alternative accommodation was available to the tenant. The appellate authority came to a finding that there were two shops which were in possession of the petitioner and none of them was let out to Dhani Ram. The appellate authority granted eviction of the petitioner tenant on the ground that the son of the petitioner (tenant) had an open piece of the land over which a building could be constructed by him. The learned Judge who decided the case held that as the accommodation was not in existence the case could not be covered by Clause (b) of the Act. The present case is, however, quite distinct as is clear from the order of the appellate authority quoted above. The shop which was offered in alternative belonged to the landlord. The appellate authority had granted time to the petitioner to make an application for allotment of the same within two months from the date of order. He further ordered that the petitioners will have to vacate the shop and the order of eviction shall not be executed till the tenant get possession over the shop offered as an alternative. Under the circumstances the petitioner has not been put to any loss so far as the offer of alternative accommodation was concerned. The eviction order comes into play against him only when he is actually allotted the shop and obtains possession of the same. If the allotment is not made due to some reason or the other, the order cannot be executed against him. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that there was no alternative accommodation available or that the offer was fake and unreal. The offer has been made which is to take effect only after its allotment and under the circumstances the interest of the tenant is amply protected.
(3.) THE other argument of the learned counsel was that he was entitled to compensation as he was being evicted from a business accommodation. He argued on the basis of Annexure '4' to the writ petition that the shop that was being offered to him as an alternative was far away from the road whereas the present shop was just on the road. It is true that the defendant might have some dis-advantages but as there were several shops adjoining the shop offered and in business locality, every shop cannot be on the road, the offer cannot be said to be unreasonable. THE petitioner may have some loss in shifting the business from the road. He may be compensated by two years' rent. The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection and agrees that his client will be prepared to pay two years rent in case the petitioner is evicted from the present shop.;