K.N. Goyal, J. - (1.) THIS is a landlord's writ petition arising out of proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in respect of a shop. The Petitioner was a government servant employed in the Fruits Utilization Directorate. An application under Section 21 had been given by him in anticipation of his retirement with the contention that he intended to carry on the business of fruit preservation in the premises. It was also stated that opposite party who had taken of premises for running a homoeopathy clinic in the premises had already shifted to another building in Lalbagh where, in he had been carrying on his practice and that he was keeping the said premises locked. The application under Section 21 was allowed by the Prescribed Authority but on appeal the order was reversed by the learned Additional District Judge. Aggrieved by that order the Petitioner has come to this Court.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. On the question whether the opposite party was keeping the premises locked and had actually shifted his practice to Lalbagh the appellate court has not recorded any riding . It has observed that it was not necessary to do so because the Petitioner had not established any need at all. The ground for holding that the Petitioner had not established any need was that the premises in question were, in the opinion of the appellate court, too small for the business of manufactures of preserved food articles. It appears, however, from the order of the appellate court that there was an adjoining portion of the building which was also in the possession of the Petitioner. The matter should have been considered in the prospective of the entire accommodation and the entire need of the Petitioner.
(3.) MOREOVER , the question whether the opposite party had already shifted his practice to Lalbgah and was keeping the premises locked was certainly very material. A decision in Raj Kumar Singh v. II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, 1982 ARC 535 was cited before the appellate court but was sought to be distinguished. In this decision it was held that where the accommodation was not being utilised for business purposes by the tenant, even a lesser need of the landlord could be said to be highly pressing In taking this view reliance was also placed on Rule 16(2)(b) framed under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 which lays down that where the tenant has available with him suitable accommodation to which he can shift his business without substantial loss there shall be greater justification for allowing the application. It was also observed that there was a tendency amongst tenants enjoying an accommodation on cheap rent to retain the same even if it was not required by them and that the Act is not meant to protect such tenants. This decision should have been taken into account while considering the application of the Petitioner. The need of the landlord and the assessment of comparative hardship are not totally unconnected matters The legislature itself as well as the rule making authority have by various provisions connoted the two concepts by laying down that in cases where the hardship to the tenant is minimal the need of the landlord is not to be scrutinized with the same care as in other cases. It will also be desirable, when the matter goes back to the appellate court, to get an inspection made of the premises so that the various contentions of the parties may be better appreciated.;