- (1.) VIKRAM Nath, J. This writ petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the judgment and order dated 8-1-1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Meerut (respondent No. 1) in Misc. Appeal No. 139 of 1996 whereby the appeal has been allowed and the application of release of the shop in dispute allowed by the Prescribed Authority has been rejected.
(2.) THE dispute relates to shop No. 1102/1 situate at P. L. Sharma Road, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute) of which the petitioner is the owner and landlord and the respondent No. 3 Raj Pal is the tenant. THE petitioner by means of the sale- deed dated 31-7-1991 purchased a residential house bearing No. 1089/2 and three small shops No. 1102/1, 1102/2 and 1103 situate on P. L. Sharma Road, Meerut for his own use for residential as well as office purposes. It is not disputed that the petitioner is an Advocate and has a standing of more than 20 years. As the house was situate inside narrow lane and there was no sufficient accommodation to establish the office, the petitioner decided to set up his office on the main road for convenience of his clients as also for want of sufficient accommodation. He accordingly, applied for release of the shop in dispute under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). THE release application has been filed as Annexure-CA-4 to the counter-affidavit whereas the map attached to the release application has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the map which was part of the release application clearly indicates that shop No. 1102/1 which is the shop in dispute is in the tenancy of Rajpal and was required for the purposes of gallery and the other two shops for which also proceeding for release was undertaken was to be utilized for the purposes of office. THE application was contested by the tenant- respondent No. 3 on the ground that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation with him where he could set up his office and there was no need of gallery and the release application has been filed mala fide. THE prescribed authority, after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the need setup by the petitioner was genuine and bona fide and accordingly allowed the same vide judgment dated 6-4-1996. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 139 of 1996. THE appellate authority vide judgment dated 8-1-1998 allowed the appeal holding that the other two shops No. 1102/2 and 1103 which had already come in the possession of the petitioner was sufficient for the office of the petitioner and there was no need for the third shop in dispute. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- landlord. I have heard Sri A. C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Jain learned Counsel for the respondent- tenant. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority has proceeded on presumption that the shop in dispute was also required for the purposes of office and secondly that shop No. 1103 which had been ordered to be released has still not come into the possession of the petitioner, therefore, the findings of the appellate authority are vitiated. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has urged that the Appellate Court examined the sufficiency of the accommodation and having arrived at the conclusion that two shops which would come into possession of the petitioner was sufficient and as such rightly allowed the appeal of the tenant.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner from very beginning has set up his claim for utilizing the shop in dispute for gallery and the other two shops for purposes of office. The appellate authority has not recorded any finding that the need for gallery was not bona fide but has proceeded on the assumption that on receipt of the possession of shop No. 1103 his need would be fulfilled. This is exactly what the landlord-petitioner had stated in his release application that two shops being 1102/2 and 1103 would serve his purpose of office and the shop in dispute was required for gallery. In may opinion, the appellate authority committed error in holding that upon receipt of possession of shop No. 1103 the need of the petitioner would be fulfilled. No finding has been recorded as to how the need of the gallery set up by the petitioner would be fulfilled. Learned Counsel for the respondent have relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kamta Das Verma v. VII Additional District Judge & Ors. , 2000 (38) ALR 243, that the Court could examine the sufficiency of accommodation by releasing part of the accommodation from the premises in dispute. The said judgment does not help the respondent in as much as the appellate authority had failed to examine the need of the gallery.;