S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by it against original tenant Santosh Chandra Jain who died during the pendency of the release proceedings and was substituted by original respondents 2 to 5 -Smt. Sugani Devi and others. Release application was filed on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before Prescribed Authority, Allahabad which was registered as Case No. 18 of 1978. Prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 9.10.1979 allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order original respondents 2 to 5 -Smt. Sugani Devi and others filed R.C. Appeal No. 651 of 1979. IInd A.D.J., Allahabad through judgment and order dated 10.3.1983 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the prescribed authority and dismissed the release application hence this writ petition. Petitioner -landlord is Shri Paras Nath Bhagwan Birajman Shri Dibamgar Jain Panchayati Mandir Prayag.
(2.) PROPERTY in dispute is a double storied house. According to the landlord there are four rooms on the ground floor and four rooms on the first floor. However, according to the tenants there are three rooms on the ground floor two rooms on the first floor and two verandas on the ground floor. Rent is only Rs. 24/ - per month. Current rent of the house in dispute may be about 200 to 300 times of the existing rent. Tenant was having another house in his ownership in the same city (Allahabad) where house in dispute in situate. He let out the said house to different persons and now he has sold the same. The landlord had pleaded that it was a trust and it was having a Dharamshala adjoining to the property in dispute and it required the property in dispute for extension of Dharamshala as with the passage of time more and more pilgrims were visiting Allahabad and often Dharamshala was not able to provide rooms to all the pilgrims who intended to stay therein. Landlord also stated that it was not charging any amount from the occupants of the rooms apart from nominal charges for electricity etc. Tenant had asserted that landlord was not a charitable trust. However, the said finding was not accepted even by the Appellate Court. Appellate Court held the need of the landlord for extension of Dharamshala to be not bona fide on a strange ground. Appellate Court held that landlord failed to prove that all the existing rooms were full on all the days. No Dharamshala or residential hotel can claim that all its rooms are occupied on all the days. Merely because in lean season some rooms of hotel or Dharamshala are vacant it does not mean that for the season when there is rush of customers the hotel or Dharamshala does not require more rooms. Allahabad has got tremendous religious importance for Hindus and like other religious, places during particular periods rush of pilgrims is more pressing than during other periods. If for peak season additional rooms are required the need is quite bona fide.
(3.) APPELLATE Court also held that the landlord had some other space in which it constructed shops and in case the need for constructing additional rooms for. Dharamshala was pressing, instead of shops it could have constructed the additional rooms. A landlord is not supposed to make all efforts to satisfy his need in such manner that a sitting tenant is not disturbed. If the landlord found that it was more beneficial to it to construct the shops at the place which was available to it, tenant could not question its wisdom. A trust requires many things for performing its functions properly and for augmenting its income. In this regard the choice is always of the landlord. The Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United Insurance Company : AIR 1999 SC 100 and S.N. Kapoor v. B.L. Kesarwani, 2002 (46) ALR 209 has held that neither the tenant nor the Court can suggest the landlord the other means through which he can adjust his need.;