- (1.) SANJAY Misra, J. These are two connected writ petitions between the same parties.
(2.) HEARD Sri K. K. Arora, learned Counsel for the petitioner tenant and Sri P. C. Jain, learned Counsel appearing, on behalf of the respondent landlord. In writ petition No. 37097 of 2004, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 30-5- 1997 passed in P. A. No. 20 of 1990 by the Prescribed Authority Agra and the judgment and order dated 28-8-2004 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 201 of 1997. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent land lord is a limited company having various properties in the city of Agra. The dis pute relates to the property No. 14/193 known as Mulberry House situate in Mohalla Ghatia Azam Khan Agra. The petitioner is a tenant in the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. The. respondent landlord filed an ap plication under Section 21 (1) (?) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground that it requires the premises for the purpose of establishing a home for poor, disabled and destitute members of the Society and to provide medical aid to them. The petitioner contested the release application and one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was that the respondent company has in its possession and ownership various other accommodations within the city of Agra and during the pendency of the present proceedings it had let out one such property known as Air Cottage to the Taj Press Club Agra and as such the need set up by the respondent com pany for the premises in question was neither genuine nor pressing in as much as if it required a premise for the said purpose, it could have satisfied its need by establishing the said home in the Air Cottage itself. The petitioner's case was that he denied that the respondent landlord is a public charitable or religious institution and that the petitioner was carrying on his clinic in the said premises and if he is evicted there from he shall face im mense hardship. The petitioner ad mitted that he has invested money in maintaining the building by making ex tensive renovations which were within the knowledge of the Arc Bishop. Learned Counsel for the petitioner con tended that the application for release was made solely for the purpose of en hancing the rent. The respondent landlord had taken the plea that the petitioner has retired from Government service and he does not require such a big and vast the premises which has an area of 3316 Sq. yard out of which constructed area is 1406 Sq. yards. It was also the case of the respondent that material alterations and substantial damage had been made and caused to the premises by the petitioner and further that the son of the petitioner has already acquired a residential accommodation at premises No. 1 HIG Block No. 4 Sanjay Place Agra and also acquired another premises having its No. F-11/8 Prateek Centre Sanjai Place Agra.
(3.) THE prescribed authority con sidered the need set up by the landlord on the basis of evidence led by the par ties and found that the respondent being a private limited Company could maintain the application for release. It found that the respondent landlord was a Trust and it repelled the argument of the petitioner that the application was not maintainable at the instance of its administrator. THE Board of Directors of the Company had passed a resolution dated 6-10-1986 for establishment of a home for poor disabled and destitute members of the Society and for provid ing medical aid to them and not for any other person. THE prescribed authority did not agree that the release applica tion was filed with the motive of getting the premises vacated and then selling the same. THE prescribed authority found the need of the respondent landlord to be bona fide and genuine. Since the petitioner's son and daughter-in-law who are both Doctors by profession and had been living with the petitioner had acquired an alterna tive accommodation in the city, there fore, the petitioner who is a retired Government doctor could live with his wife alongwith his son. It, therefore, found that the petitioner would not suf fer greater hardship if the premises in question was vacated by him. On the other hand it found that the respondent landlord would suffer more comparative hardship in as much as it would not be able to establish a home for poor dis abled and destitute member of the society which was a laudable cause in furtherance of the objectives and for which the Board of Directors had al ready passed a resolution. Conse quently the prescribed authority al lowed the application of the respondent landlord and released the premises in question. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal with costs. The appellate Court confirmed the find ings of the prescribed authority and found that the petitioner had available to him residential accommodation where his son was living and he has not made any efforts to acquire another ac commodation which was a fact heavily weighing against the tenant while com paring hardship between the parties. The appellate Court found that the respondent landlord had fully estab lished his need for setting up a home for the poor, disabled and destitute mem bers of the society to fulfill its charitable objects.;