S. P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) IN a proceeding under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') initiated by the respondent no. 3 praying for the release of the accommodation IN dispute under the tenancy of the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority allowing the said application ordered for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant subject to the condition that the landlord pays to the tenant an amount equal to two years rent. This order of release was challenged by the petitioner without any success before the appellate authority which dismissed this appeal maintaining thereby the order of release.
(2.) THE petitioner tenant has now approached this Honourable Court for redress seeking the quashing of the aforesaid orders. The facts shorn of details and relevant for the disposal of the writ petition of Chhotey Nath are that the accommodation In dispute is being utilised for business purposes by the petitioner and he carries on a small tea stall therein In the writ petition of Babu Ram, however, the accommodation in dispute is being utilised for a small business of General Merchandise. Landlord had moved three applications seeking release of three different adjacent accommodations situate in the same building which were in occupation of different tenants including the petitioner. The landlord wanted the release of the aforesaid three accommodations which were being utilised tor business purposes. The accommodation in the occupation of the petitioner-tenant Chhotey Nath and one Raghunath which were adjacent were sought for satisfying the need of the landlord's son Sandeep who had to be settled in independent business and taking into consideration the nature of the business being established for htm, the accommodation in the occupation of the present petitioner and Rughunath were required as the landlord intended to demolish the separating wall of these two accommodations whereby a larger accommodation was to become available to satisfy the need However, in the case of petitioner tenant Babu Ram the accommodation was required for establishing the landlord-respondent in his own independent business in General Merchandise. The Prescribed Authority after carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials and the evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the building in question was bonafide required by the landlord as claimed and his need for the same was genuine and pressing. The Prescribed Authority further recorded a finding that the hardships likely to be suffered by the landlord by the rejection of the release application would be much greater as compared to the hardships likely to be suffered by the tenant in the event of the grant of the release sought for. In this connection, the Prescribed Authority took into account all the necessary factors including the fact that the tenant had failed to make any genuine attepmt to get any alternative accommodation either through the agency of the rent control authority or through independent negotiations though several such accommodations were available which could be easily acquired. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order granting release sought for, the petitioner-tenant challenged the same in an appeal filed by him which was disposed of by the appellate authority respondent no 1 vide the judgment and order dated 22-5-92 where under the grant of release in favour of the landlord-respondent was upheld. During the pendency of the appeal the landlord had moved an application paper no.15-C on 21-8-91 asserting that even though the tenant was not likely to suffer any greater hardship in the event of the grant of the release of the shop in question and his business was of a very small nature which could be carried out very well even on a Thela Just like other parsons vet to avoid any delay and considering the urgency for immediate release of the accommodation in dispute, the landlord was prepared to forego a part of his drawing-room and toilet and construct three shops in accordance with the building plan a copy of which was annexed with that application and was prepared to let out one of the shops to each of the tenants on a rent fixed by the court. The prayer made in the application was that the appeal may be decided at once considering the offer contained in the said application. 4. After considering the evidence and the material on record the appellate authority endorsed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the question of the genuineness and the bonafides of the requirement of the landlord for the release of the accommodation in dispute. It was also held that the need for the release was pressing. However the appellate authority recorded a further finding on the question of comparative hardship in a peculiar way holding that the requirement of the shop in dispute so far as the tenant was concerned was also correct and genuine. A perusal of the judgment passed by the appellate authority indicates that he appears to have held that hardship to both the landlord and the tenant would be the same. But taking into consideration the nature and scope of the business of the tenant and the situation and the extent of the alternative accommodation offerred by the landlord for the shifting of the business of the tenant, the appellate authority did not find the case to be a fit one for interference in appeal provided the alternative accommodation offered was made available to the tenant at the rate of Rs- 50/- per month apart from taxes etc. The appellate authority recorded a clear finding to the effect that the tenant will not suffer greater hardship in case he was allowed to occupy the alternative accommodation offerred by the landlord. Accordingly the appellate authority modified the order passed by the Prescribed Authority by directing that the alternative accommodation be made ready within a period of three months and should be let out to the tenant-appellant at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month apart from taxes and with the above direction the appeal was dismissed.
(3.) BEING aggrieved the tenant-petitioner has now approached this Court seeking the quashing of both the orders referred to above. A have heard Sri R. G. Padia. in support of the writ petition and ri P. K. Singhal, learned counsel representing the landlord respondent.;