S.N.Saxena - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent no. I, who has filed caveat. The landlord (respondent No. 1) had moved an application for release of the accommodation in dispute which is a shop in the tenancy of the petitioners on the ground that he required it for establishing his grown-up sons in business. The aforesaid release application was contested by the petitioners mainly on the ground that their need was more genuine, bonafide and pressing than the need of the landlord, that they had been in possession of the shop in dispute since long and that they would suffer huge financial loss if they were evicted from it. Both the courts below found that the need of the landlord was genuine, bona fide and more pressing. The prescribed authority, therefore, allowed the release application. Feeling aggrieved, the tenants preferred rent appeal No. 1342/90 which was heard and dismissed by the VlHth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur on 22-11- 1993. The tenants, feeling aggrieved, instituted this writ petition in this court: against the aforesaid order passed in the rent appeal.
(2.) WHILE considering the comparative need of the parties, the court below observed that during the pendency of these release proceedings, petitioners had got released their two shops occupied by their tenants but instead of occupying the same, they got them allotted to different persons as tenants thereof which showed that their contention of genuine and bonafide need was not correct. Both the courts below also found that sometime prior to the commencement of this litigation, the petitioners has got released one more shop which belonged to them of which they had obtained possession also but instead of carrying on business! in it, they had left it lying vacant as a result of which it had become dilapidated. The appellate court, further observed that the petitioners, after the release of the aforesaid three shops, could have started business therein which, however, for no good reasons was not done and therefore, their contention that their need was more pressing than the need of the landlord could not be accepted. After considering the submissions-put-forward by the learned counsel for the parties and also going through the record including the judgments of the prescribed authority and the court of appeal, I am of the opinion that the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below did not require any interference in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was contended for the petitioners that the shop which they had got released earlier now was in the shape of a 'Khandahar' and therefore, could not deemed suitable for use as a shop in which they could have carried their business. The contention appears to be devoid of merits. It was evident that the petitioners, after obtaining possession of the aforesaid shop neither utilized it, nor cared to maintain it. The pleadings of the parties in the earlier release proceedings were not before this Court but even then it could reasonably be said that the petitioners must have got their shop released on account of their genuine, bonafide and pressing need. They, therefore, were expected to utilize the said shop for their business purpose! They, however, allowed it to become a "Khandahar" so much so that its roof had fallen. It was due to their own negligence that they allowed the shop to get converted into a dilapidated condition and therefore, it was not open to them to contend now that no alternative shop was available to them for carrying on their business, lit has not been contended by the petitioners that due to financial hardship they could not maintain the shop which they had got released sometime ago. No explanation was put forward by the petitioners as to why they allowed the shop to become dilapidated. It was not their case that the shop, when got released, was in dilapidated condition. This state of affairs supported the contention of the landlord that the petitioners on false pretext had got the shop released and, there after, allowed it to become dilapidated so that they may not on their ground of the availability of alternative accommodation be evicted from the accommodation in dispute.
(3.) ON the basis of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the courts below had rightly allowed the release application. No interference was permissible in this writ petition which, therefore, was liable to be dismissed summarily. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, prayed that the pensioners had very old business in the shop in dispute and, therefore, some more time may be granted to them to vacate it if the present writ petition was to be dismissed at this stage. The request appears to be reasonable and I propose to give them six months from today to vacate it. The writ petition is dismissed summarily at the stage of admission.;