S.P.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the decision of the appellate authority, affirming the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, where under the accommodation in dispute has been released in favour of the landlord respondent in the proceedings initiated by him in the year, 1978 under Section 21(3)(a) of the U P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'ACT') the petitioner tenant has now approached this court by means of the present writ petition for redress seeking the quashing of the aforesaid orders. The accommodation in dispute which is being utilised by the petitioner tenant for business purposes was sought to be released for satisfying the need of the landlord's son to establish him independently in the lawyer's profession for which according to the landlord he bona fide needed the space for chamber & library. The release application was contested by the petitioner tenant on various grounds denying the allegations made in the release application and asserting that the need set up by the landlord was not a bona fide one as the landlord had at his disposal sufficient accommodation which could very well be utilised for satisfying the alleged requirement. It was also asserted that the tenant petitioner who had been running his business in the accommodation in dispute for a period of 25 years will be put to a greater hardship in the case of the grant of release as compared to the hardships likely to be suffered by the landlord in the event of the rejection of the said application.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority after carefully considering the evidence and the materials on record came to the conclusion that the tenant was carrying on the business of melting silver in the accommodation in dispute for the past about 20 years and that the son of the landlord for whose requirement the release was sought was an Advocate with a standing of five or six years and his requirement for establishing a chamber and a library was genuine. The prescribed authority further recorded a finding that the tenant had acquired a piece of vacant land near the Nagar Palika road and there, were several shops which were available to him where he could easily continue his business. The Prescribed Authority further found that the tenant was a famous person and well known to the bullion merchants who were his customers and taking into consideration the nature of business carried on by him which was only the melting of the silver, there was no likelihood of his business being adversely affected in the event of the change of place inasmuch as, the tenant will carry his reputations with him. The prescribed authority further recorded a finding that the landlord did not have at his disposal any other accommodation which could satisfy the requirement for which the release was sought. While considering the question of relative hardships, the prescribed authority had accepted the case of the landlord that the tenant No. 1 had wound up his business in district Deoria and had shifted to Bombay. In this connection, the prescribed authority had taken into account the fact that the tenant petitioner No 1 had never put in appearance on any of the date fixed in the case and had also not filed any affidavit. The prescribed authority had placed reliance on the affidavit of Ranglal, tenant petitioner No 2 wherein he had admitted that Sri Subharao tenant petitioner No. 1 had started business in Bombay. The prescribed authority had also took note of the fact that the tenant petitioners had taken no step to obtain the vacant shops which had become available. In view of the aforesaid findings, the prescribed authority allowed the application for release of the accommodation in dispute as claimed. The findings recorded by the prescribed authority were affirmed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority found that the son of the petitioner was independently practicing as an Advocate and in connection with his profession as an Advocate, he did bona fide require a chamber and the library and the need for the purpose as set up by the landlord was genuine and bona fide. The appellate authority further found that the landlord did not have at his disposal any such accommodation which could satisfy the requirement of his son. The appellate authority also took into account the fact that taking into consideration the extent of accommodation required for satisfying the need of the son of the landlord the nature and extent of the alternative accommodation suggested by the tenant, which according to him could be utilised for the purpose, was wholly insufficient and could not therefore meet the requirement. On the question relating to comparative hardships, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that for want of chamber and library the son of the landlord could not establish himself in the profession chosen by him and will be put to a greater hardship as compared to the tenant. It was found that the hardships likely to be suffered by the landlord in the event of the rejection of the application will be much greater as compared to the hardship likely to be suffered by the tenant in the event of the grant of the release application. The appeal filed by the tenant was therefore, dismissed.
(3.) I have heard T. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Counsel, representing the landlord respondent and have carefully perused the record.;