- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Dayal, Senior Advocate representing the landlord- respondent.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by an appellate order parsed in tne proceedings under Section 21 of the U. F. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter ret erred to as the Act) whereunder the appellate authority after setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting the application for release of the accommodation in dispute under the tenancy of the petitioner had granted the release sought for, the petitioner-tenant has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the appellate order. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the landlord-respon dent had held the application seeking release of the accommodation in dispute asserting that the said accommodation had initially been let out to Manna Lal, the father of the tenant-petitioner for a non-residential purpose and was being utilised as such for the manufacturing of wooden 'payas' for beds etc. by power driven machines. After the death of Manna Lal the said premises were continued to be utilised for non-residential purposes, h was further asserted that the accommodation in dispute having two rooms was required for settling the eldest son of the landlord who is a doctor in medical practice who wanted to run his clinic therein, it was also asserted that the third son of the landlord who was studying in M. B. B. S. third year also required to be settled and join the clinic of his elder brother. The aforesaid application was contested by the tenant-petitioner asserting that the need set up for the release in question was neither bonafide or genuine nor pressing as claimed. It was also asserted that Sri Manna Lal was not utilising the accommodation in dispute for a non-residential purpose and that the said accommodation was throughout being utilised for residential purpose alone. The tenant- petitioner also claimed that the application for release was not maintainable in view of the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Act which prohibited entertainment of an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act in the case of any residential building for occupation for business purposes. In this view of the matter it was asserted that since the release application itself was not maintainable and the need of the landlord was neither bonafide nor genuine or pressing the question of comparison of relative hardships did not arise at all. In the written statement filed by the tenant-petitioner it was stated that he was doing business of sale and purchase of woods but the place of business was shown to be different that the accommo dation in dispute.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion after taking into consideration various documentary evidence on record that a portion of the disputed accommodation was being utilised for residential purposes. However, the Prescribed Authority did not accept the claim of the landlord that the need for the accommodation in dispute was genuine, bonafide and pressing. It may be noticed that during the pendency of the proceedings the landlord had offered an alternative accommodation for being utilised for residential purposes to the petitioner but that offer was not taken in to consideration holding that it was an after-thought and was not bona fide one. It was also observed that the tenant-petitioner was suffering from hypertension and the accommodation which had been offered being situated on the first floor, it may prove harmful to the tenant as he will have to go up stairs. On the aforesaid findings the release application was rejected. The appellate authority however, after an appraisal of evidence and the materials on record came to the conclusion that the need for settling the eldest son of the petitioner in the premises in dispute for utilising the same as a clinic was bonafide, genuine and pressing. The appellate authority also recorded a finding that considering the affidavits of the landlord dated 25-8-1992 and 4-3-1993 which had been ignored by the Prescribed Authority, it was clear that initially the accommodation in dispute had been let out for a business purpose and was being utilised for the manufacture of wooden 'payas' and later on the petitioner himself started motor repair work in the said premises and it was thereafter that the purpose was changed to residential one, and in the circumstances the prohibition contemplated under the proviso referred to herein above could not be deemed to have been attracted. The appellate authority also recorded a finding that the offer of the landlord was a bonafide one and the rejection of the said offer by the tenant coupled with the fact that during the pendency of the case the tenant had made no effort to find out any other suitable alternative accommodation clearly indicated that the hardship likely to be suffered by the tenant, in the event of the grant of the application for release was to be lesser as compared to the hardship likely to be suffered by the landlord in the event of the rejection of the application. The appellate authority also set aside the finding of the prescribed authority to the effect that the tenant was suffering from hypertension or that it would be harmful for him to climb the stairs and use the accommodation situate at the first floor.;