R.B.LAL, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority dated 21.1.1980 and judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 6.1.1978 passed under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (briefly the Act).
(2.) THE petitioners are owners of building No. 132, Hewett Road, Allahabad which they purchased on 19.12.1970 for a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. Two rooms in the from portion of his building were in the tenancy of M/s. Shiv Dutt'a sons and four rooms, one courtyard, one lavatory and one bath room in the tenancy of M/s. Srivastava Binding Works, respondent No. 3, at a rental of Rs. 65/- per month since before the purchase of the building by the petitioners. The remaining portion of the ground floor and the upper storeys were in the occupation of the petitioners and it was said that the accommodation was being used for residential purposes. The petitioners filed to applications for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against the aforesaid tenants on the ground of personal need. In the release application filed against M/s. Shiv Dutt and sons it was said that the rooms were required to accommodate office and show room of a factory which petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, were going to set up. In the other release application the petitioners averred that petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 were unemployed and needed the accommodation in possession of the tenant (respondent No. 3) to install a factory for manufacture of nuts and bolts. They have no other accommodation where they could establish that factory. They had the financial capacity to install the factory and had ordered machinery for the same. their need to have the accommodation for installing the factory was bonafide, genuine and pressing. They would be put to greater hardship than the tenant if their application for release was rejected. The accommodation in question was not being used by the tenant and was lying closed. There would be no hardship to the tenant. In a replication filed on the 26.4.1979, the petitioners added that since the machines had been received and because the same were to be installed within a certain time limit, they were installed in the compound of M/s. Naveen Engineering Works at Naini, but that was merely a temporary arrangement. The need of the petitioners to have the accommodation in question for installing the nut and bolt factory was again emphasized. The petitioners also asserted that the tenant owned a big piece of land and could easily shift the business.
(3.) THE tenant (respondent No. 3) contested the release application on various grounds. It contended that the accommodation in question was small in size and was not at all sufficient for the purpose of establishing a nut and bolt factory. The petitioners owned a big plot in the industrial area at Naini, which was suited for establishing the factory. The petitioner had already established the factory at Naini. It has no other place for shifting the business of book binding which was being carried on in the accommodation in question. The need of the petitioners to have the accommodation in question was not genuine.;