S.P.Srivastava - (1.) FEELING aggrieved by an order passed by the appellate authority in the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), whereunder allowing the appeal, the accommodation in dispute let out to the petitioner for being utilised for commercial purpose has been released in favour of the landlord, the petitioner tenant has sow approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the appellate order.
(2.) I have heard Sri R. N Simgh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. P. Agrawal, learned counsel representing the contesting landlord. I have also perused the record carefully. The facts, short of details and necessary for the disposal of the present case lie in a narrow compass. The accommodation in dispute is a shop with a frontage of 11 feet 1 inch and a depth of 15 feet 10 inches. This shop according to the tenant-petitioner is utilised by him for the preparation and sale of 'Jalebi' a sweetmeat for a period of about 8 years. Proceedings under section 21 (I) (a) of the Act were initiated with the filing of an application seeking the release in question in the month of May, 1991 alleging that it was during the minority of the landlord that the shop in dispute had been let out to the petitioner and now the said shoo was required for setting Pradeep Kumar in business therein. It was asserted that Pradeep Kumar was unemployed and genuinely desired to establish himself in business and have an independent source of income It is also asserted that apart from the accommodation in dispute no other accommodation was available for satisfying the need of Pradeep Kumar. The landlord further asserted that the shop in dispute was infact not being utilised by the tenant but was kept locked and the business of preparation and sale of 'Jalebi' was being done by him on a Thela and therefore, the release of the shop was not going to affect the tenant at all as he can continue his business of preparation and sale of 'Jalebi' on the Thela. The landlord indicated that he was competent to ran a business of Kirana merchant and wanted to establish Kirana business in the shop in dispute. It was also asserted in support of the release in question that the father of the landlord was occupying a shop having a frontage of 6 feet 2 inches and a depth of 16 feet 1/2 inches where he was continuing bis independent business and had to support from the income- thereof himself, wife, tons and unmarried daughter. Ill was indicated that Pradeep Kumar did not like to continue to remain a burden on his father and wanted himself to settle in independent business and the need for the shop in dispute was a bonafide, genuine and pressing. It lis also asserted that he will suffer greater hardship in the event of the rejection of the release application as compared to the hardship likely to be suffered by the tenant in the event of the grant of the application. In this connection it was also pointed out that a large number of newly built shops were available as an alternative accommodation for the tenant which were situate nearby the disputed shop but instead of repeated requests, the tenant was net vacating the shop in dispute.
(3.) THE tenant petitioner contested the claim of the landlord respondent raising various pleas asserting that the father of the landlord was not doing any business and the shop in his occupation was lying vacant and could easily be utilised for the purpose for which the release was sought. It was also asserted that Pradeep Kumar was not unemployed as alleged but was doing business of a contractor in partnership with one Sri Mehta and did not require the shop in dispute at all. THE tenant petitioner also asserted that he had been doing the business of 'Halwai' i.e. Sweatmeat business in the shop in dispute for the post 8 yearly and had acquired a 'good will' He also claimed that the shop in dispute was the only source of livelihood for the tenant and from the income there of he was supporting his family. THE tenant also claimed that he will suffer greater hardship is the event of the grant of the release sought for as compared to the likely hardship which the landlord might suffer in the event of the rejection of the application for the release. The prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that it was not established that the father of Pradedp Kumar was not doing any business in the shop continuing to be in his occupation and the said shop could very well be utilised by Pradeep Kumar for satisfying his need. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the claim of the petitioner hat the need for the shop set up by him was genuine and bonafied. The prescribed Authority further did not accept the claim of the landlord that the tenant was doing business of preparation and sale of 'Jalebi' on a Thela on the solitary ground thai had it been so "he: would not have continued his tenancy in respect of the accomodation in dispute on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. Consequently it was held that in the event of the grant of the release sought for, (the tenant will suffer greater hardship as compared to the likely hardships that the landlord might suffer in the event of the rejection of the application for the release.;