- (1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. Heard Sri S. M. K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the landlord, petitioner and Sri M. S. Kotwal appearing for the tenant, opposite party No. 2.
(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the order dated 18-4-2002 passed by the appellate authority under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 28-9- 1999 allowing the release application filed by the landlord and ordering eviction of the tenant. In the present case, two Kotharis, shops Nos. 8 and 9, situate at Gopinath Building No. 508/57, New Hyderabad, Lucknow were rented out the tenant Sri Puttan Lal, opposite party No. 2. He was paying a meagre rent of Rs. 20/- per month for the said two shops, which are presently being used for selling milk and running a tea-stall. It emerges from record that an application for release of the premises was submitted by the landlord Radhey Shyam Agarwal etc. before the prescribed authority under Section 21 of the Act. It was indicated in the release application that in the tenement, the tenant was running a tea-stall besides doing the business of selling milk on retail basis. It was further indicated that the tenant had sufficient accommodation in another portion of the building which was in his occupation. The tenant could live comfortably and sell milk from the above-said portion occupied by him. The landlord had submitted before the prescribed authority that he was running the Kirana business in a portion of the building, where premises in question i. e. Kotharis Nos. 8 and 9 under the tenancy of opposite party No. 2 Puttan Lal situate. A plan of the building was placed before the Courts below and, before this Court too. The petitioner had demonstrated the situation of two Kotharis/shops in question in the building and the existing Kirana shop run by the landlord. As per landlord, the accommodation was too insufficient to run the Kirana business. The landlord wanted to expand his business. From Kirana shop, goods of daily consumption and household were sold. In view of expanded business, proper store of so many kind of goods was to be maintained, for which additional accommodation was needed. As per petitioner, the premises, Kotharis Nos. 8 and 9, which in fact were being used as shops by the tenant opposite party No. 2 Puttan Lal for running a tea-stall and milk vending, were most suitable for expansion of his Kirana business.
(3.) THE tenant, opposite party No. 2, opposed the application for release. His main thrust before the prescribed authority was that the petitioner is a big landlord and is having large number of properties at his disposal in the city of Lucknow. It was denied that the landlord was intending to carry on the Kirana business from the premises in question. THE opposite party No. 2 was an old tenant of the premises for the last 36-37 years. He faced Suit No. 354 of 1988 filed by the erstwhile owner Sri Lal Chand Rastogi in the year 1988, which was dismissed on 23-1-1992 by the concerned Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow. THE proceedings initiated by the landlord were under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. An additional written statement was also filed to demonstrate that kotharis Nos. 8 and 9 in the tenancy of opposite party No. 2 were in use as a single unit for residential purpose and the same cannot be released for business purposes. The prescribed authority allowed the release application vide order dated 28-9-1999 holding that the landlord's need was bona fide as he wanted to use these shops for his personal purposes, to run and expand his kirana business. The prescribed authority had also dealt with the proposal of the landlord in offering kothari No. 10 (Chhedawali Kothari) to the tenant but Sri Puttan Lal, tenant refused to accept the said offer of alternative accommodation. This kothari No. 10 cannot be added to the present kirana shop run by the landlord. The prescribed authority had appreciated the material on record and found that the landlord would suffer greater hardships if the release application was not allowed. The tenant Puttan Lal was already having residential accommodation in the same building complex. He could manage his business of selling milk and tea etc. from the said accommodation. The landlord could not be deprived of his property, required for expansion of his business and for augmenting his income. The prescribed authority had also noted the fact that the tenant had not made any efforts to search alternative accommodation despite filing of the release application in the year 1988.;