- (1.) SUDHIR Narayan, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority, dated 7-10-1989, whereby he allowed the reels application of the landlady respondent No. 3 filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (In short 'the Act') and the order of respondent No. 1, dated 18-11-1981, dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that Raja Babu Agarwal was owner of premises No. 31/128 Lathi Mohal, Kanpur. He sold two portions separately one to Raj Kumar and his brothers on 14-10-1977 and another portion to portion to Smt. Kamla Devi (respondent No 3) through registered sale died dated 14-10-1977. Raja Babu Agarwal died in the year 1978. THEreafter his h sold third portion to Smt. Pratap Devi in the year 1980. Smt. Pratap Devi mother-in-law of Gopal Krishna, the petitioner. THE portion purchased by respondent No. 3 was numbered as 31/128, portion purchased by Raj Kumar and others was numbered as 31/128-A and the portion purchased by Smt. Pratap Devi was numbered as 31/128-B. THE petitioner has a shop in THE portion purchased by Raj Kumar and carrying on hardware business He ha, also a portion of premises No. 31/128 owned by respondent No 3 which consist, of tin shed about 10'x10', a Kothan about 7'x4' and some of space. THE dispute relates to this portion. THE petitioner has further in t occupation two godowns which are in portion 31/128-B which is owned by his mother-in-law Smt. Pratap Devi. THE landlady respondent No. 3 has a shop in a portion of 3 L/128 towards south to the dispute accommodation, the size of which is approximately 13'x17'. On the ground floor is the shop in which the landlady and her sons are carrying on hardware business. THEre is a Dochatti (Mezenine floor ). THEre is first floor, second floor and floor is alleged to be open space. THEse portions are being utilised for residential purpose of respondent No. 3 and her family. Respondent No. 3 filed an application on 28-8-1992 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the allegation that she requires the disputed accommodation for expansion of the business. The area covered by shop her occupation was too small and insufficient for keeping hardware articles and some times the customers are to return back. It was stated that the tenant-petitioner would not suffer any hardship as he has got a shop in adjoining portion and the other two godowns which are owned f by her mother-in- law. The petitioner contested the application, it was denied that the need of respondent No. 3 was bona fide as she has sufficient accommodation for the business purpose. During the pendency of the application, respon dent No. 3 tiled an application for amendment of her petition on 6-7-1984 taking the plea that the accommodation for residential purposes was also insufficient for her occupation which is on the first ami second floors of the shop which was in her occupation. Her family consisted of herself, two sons namely Rajendra Prasad and Shiv Prasad and her daughter Urmila Devi. Rajendra Prasad has wife and three daughters. Shiv Prasad has wife and two daughters. The Court appointed a Commissioner to inspect the entire premises No. 31/128. First Commission report, dated 25-7-1983 was set aside and thereafter another Commission was appointed who submitted his report on 15-2-1988. This report was confirmed. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application of respondent No. 3 holding that her need for commercial purposes as well as for residential purpose was bona fide and in case her application is rejected, she would suffer greater hardship than the petitioner who has got some alternative accommodation. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 18-11-1991.
(3.) I have beard Sri K. M. Dayal, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri S. N. Verma, Senior Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 3. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 had already a hardware shop and there was no allegation in the application filed by her that she needs further accommodation to aug ment her income and further there was no proof of the income and further such income was not shown to be insufficient to maintain her family and in absence of such plea and proof, the respondents acted illegally in allowing her application. It is not denied that respondent No. 3 has a shop, the dimension of which is 13' X 17', just behind the shop towards north the petitioner is a tenant of the premises in question which consists of tin shed about 10' X 10', a Kothari 7' X 4' and some open space adjoining it. He is admittedly not carrying on hardware business in this premises. He has a hardware shop towards west of it which is not in dispute and he has further two godowns towards east to the disputed premises which is also not in dispute. This tin shed and kothari are allegedly being used by the petitioner for storing hardware goods and the land is being used for igress and ingress to reach the godown and the shop as the land intervenes between the other two godowns (which are not in dispute) and the shop. The respondeot No. 3 claimed that this disputed premises could be used for expanding her shop as the shop is small for carrying on hardware business which requires sufficient space particularly for storing hardware articles. In case the rear wall of the shop is demolished and it is extended further towards north, the shop can be extended and accordingly hardware business can be expanded.;