- (1.) THIS is a petition by the landlord and arises out of proceedings under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction ). Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).
(2.) THE landlord had applied for the eviction of a tenant from the temple premises on the ground that the accommodation in question was required for Hawan, Kirtan. Ehajan etc. which were held in the temple and for which were held in the temple and for which the accommodation has become short because of the growing number of devotees. The application was contested by the tenant who alleged that the shebait, Haridesh Chand, had converted a portion of the accommodation belonging to the temple into a shop. It was also asserted that if the application is allowed, he would be deprived both of his business which he carried on in the premises in dispute and both of his business which he carried on in the premises in dispute and also of his residence. It is submitted that a greater hardship would be caused to the tenant by allowing of the application than by its refection. The tenant also pleaded that the application under Section 21 (1), (a) of the Act was not maintainable. The Prescribed Authority after considering the respective cases of the parties allowed the application.
(3.) THE tenant was aggrieved and preferred an appeal. THE appellate authority held that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not maintainable as the accommodation was not required by the landlord who was a deity for the landlord's personal residence. THE appellate authority went on to hold that Harisdesh Chand the shebait, has converted the Baithak into a shop which he was running. It was held by the appellate authority that this accommodation could have been used for the purposes of the temple. It then went on to hold that since the number of worshippers was not know, it was not possible to hold that the building was required for the purpose. It then held that a greater hardship would be caused to the tenant by the grant of the application than by its rejection. Aggrieved the landlord has come in writ petition.;