D.S.Sinha - (1.) HEARD Sri Raj Kumar, holding brief of Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel representing the contesting respondent no. 3.
(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders ana judgments passed by the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar and the IX Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, respondent no. 2 and 1 respectively, in proceedings for release of the disputed building under the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter called the Act. By the order of the respondent no. 2 the prayer for release of the disputed building has been accepted and the order and judgment of the respondent no. 1 purports to confirm, in appeal, the order and judgment of the respondent no." 2. The respondent no. 3, who is owner and landlord of the disputed building wherein the petitioner is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-, moved an application under section 21 of the Act, for release of the building on the ground that he bonafide required the same for the purpose of establishing his son in business independently. The claim of the respondent no. 3 was resisted on the ground that the need of the respondent no. 3 was not bonafide and also that his need was greater in comparison to that of the respondent no. 3. After considering the material produced before them and all the relevant facts and circumstances, the courts below have recorded concurrent findings that the need of the respondent no. 3 was bonafide and, on a comparison between the needs of the respondent no. 3 and the petitioner, it was established that if the release is refused, the loss sustained by the respondent no. 3 would be greater. These findings, which are fundamentally findings of fact, do not, in the opinion of the court, suffer from any such vice which may invite intervention by this court in exercise of its special and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) SRI Raj Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, points out that the petitioner was entitled to a compensation equivalent to the amount not exceeding two years' rent as envisaged by second proviso to section 21 of the Act and the courts below have erred in not awarding any compensation. There is force in the submission of SRI Raj Kumar. SRI Sandeep Saxena learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, does not dispute that the petitioner was entitled to compensation as envisaged by second proviso to section 21 of the Act. He, however, submits that this infirmity will not render the two impugned orders nullity and this court may direct payment of the requisite compensation to the petitioner. After giving the due consideration to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no. 3, the court is satisfied that interest of justice would be served by directing the respondent no. 3 to pay to the petitioner an amount equivalent to two years' rent by way of compensation as envisaged by second proviso to section 21 of the Act and upholding the impugned orders and judgments.;