- (1.) THE petitioner Kranti Kumar is the son of late Dr. Harish Chandra, resident of Najibabad, district Bijnor. Dr. Harish Chandra was a medical practitioner in the town of Najibabad. He used to run his clinic in the disputed accommodation. He died on 26th March, 1969, leaving behind the petitioner and his widow Smt. Ram Sakhi as his heirs and legal representatives. At that time the petitioner was in employment at Jabalpur. The accommodation in dispute is owned by the third respondent Smt. Vidyawati hereinafter referred to as the landlord. She applied for permission to file a suit for ejectment against the petitioner and his mother under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in his detailed order considered the needs of the landlord and of the tenants, namely the petitioner and his mother. It appears that the petitioner' mother had indicated to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer her intention to start a chemist shop in the accommodation in dispute as a source of her livelihood. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the need of the landlord was not genuine whereas the need of the tenant was genuine and pressing. He accordingly rejected the application of the landlord. Thereafter the landlord filed a revision before the Commissioner, Roholkhand Division. Bareilly. During the pendency of the revision application the petitioner' mother died and he being the only son of the deceased inherited the tenancy rights in the disputed accommodation. Due to change of the circumstances he resigned from the service at Jabalpur and started in the disputed accommodation a shop of readymade garments under the trade name of 'Garment Centre'. The petitioner placed his case before the Commissioner, Bareilly, but the Commissioner did not accept his case and allowed the revision application of the landlord. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred a revision before the State Government under Section 7-F of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act The State has dismissed the revision by its order dated 26th November, 1971. The petitioner is aggrieved and has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution.
(2.) THE contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that neither the Commissioner, Bareilly nor the State Government had considered his need and had proceeded on irrelevant considerations. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties I am of opinion that the contention raised by the petitioner is well founded. It is well settled that when a landlord wants to evict a sitting tenant he can succeed only if a comparison of his need and of the tenant is made, and the need of the landlord is found to be greater than that of the tenant. A landlord cannot succeed merely by saying that he needs the accommodation genuinely for his own use. This principle applied with greater force in the case of an accommodation which is of commercial nature. When a tenant of such an accommodation is evicted, his business gets dislocated. An alternative accommodation may not be of the same utility to him, because certain amount of goodwill is attached to his commercial establishment and when the location of a business is changed the good-will is likely to be lost.
(3.) THE Commissioner has disposed of the matter in the following words: "Dr. Harish Chandra was a medical practitioner and kept a dispensary in the accommodation in dispute. His widow is not a medical practitioner and the dispensary has been lying closed. Dr. Harish Chandra' son is not a doctor either nor does he live in Najibabad. He has not even contested the case. The widow' contention that she will start a druggist' shop in this accommodation does not carry conviction. In any case, she has no licence to sell drugs, nor has she started any shop yet. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that Dr. Harish Chandra' widow requires the accommodation any longer for her own personal needs. The accommodation in question is part of a larger accommodation which belongs to the revisionist and of which the revisionist is in occupation. It is only reasonable that she should be allowed to resume possession of the portion occupied by Dr. Harish Chandra.'' ;