S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) THESE two connected writ petitions, one filed by the tenants Smt. Manorama Devi and others and the other by the landlord P.S. Rana, arise out of the proceedings for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') of ground floor of house No. 105, Jhanda Mohalla, Dehradun under the tenancy of Smt. Manorama Devi and others. The landlord Sri P.S. Rana, an Advocate at Dehradun, applied for release of the premises in occupation of the tenants -Manorama Devi and others on the ground that the same was bona fide required by him in connection with his profession and that the ground floor accommodation already in his occupation was not sufficient enough to keep his law books etc. It was further alleged by the landlord that his eldest son, who was married on 14 -2 -1977 and had begotten a child, wanted a separate accommodation to live in. The other son and the daughter, it was further alleged, were receiving higher education and the second son was likely to be married. The landlord, it was alleged required two additional rooms to meet his bona fide requirements. It was also alleged that the tenants have got their own house No. 41, Basnigate, Dehradun comprising of four rooms, two kitchens and a latrine which was occupied by two tenants who could be evicted The application was opposed by the tenants, inter alia, on the ground that the landlord's need was not at all bona fide and genuine; Virendra Singh Rana, son of the landlord, it was alleged, was residing along with his wife and son in Rudrapur and not with his father at Dehradun. The landlord, it was further alleged was in possession of nine living rooms besides other accommodation on upper storey and the two rooms at the ground floor and the accommodation available with the landlord was more than sufficient for the residential purpose and for his professional work. Affidavits were filed by both the parties. The Prescribed Authority by its judgment and order dated 16 -10 -1978 rejected the release application. Aggrieved the landlord filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The appeal was partly allowed and one room shown by letters A B C D as marked by the Appellate Court in red ink in the map enclosed with the memo of appeal was released vide judgment and order dated 18 -12 -1986. The application for release in respect of remaining portion was rejected and the order of the Prescribed Authority in that regard confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the appellate order both the landlord as well as the tenants have filed the writ petition afore -stated.
(2.) I have heard Sri Aditya Narain, Counsel for landlord and Sri Rajesh Tandon appearing for the tenants. Sri Aditya Narain, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord urged that the impugned judgments and orders have been rendered without application of mind to the evidence on record led by the landlord to prove his bona fide need for the accommodation in question. He invited attention of the Court to the observations made by the Prescribed Authority in its judgment that the eldest son of the landlord filed no affidavit, whereas the fact is that affidavit Annexure 8 -A was filed by Virendra Singh Rana, son of the landlord stating therein that he alone with his wife and son had been residing with his father at 105, Jhanda Mohalla, Dehradun. Similarly the observations that "there is no other evidence on record to prove that Virendra Singh and his family are living at Dehradun" occurring in the appellate judgment is factually incorrect and the affidavits annexed as Annexures 4, 5 and 7 to the writ petition on the point, do not appear to have been considered by the Appellate Court. Sri Rajesh Tandon appearing for the tenants also urged that the tenants' plea that three out of two basements available with the landlord at the ground floor were let out during the pendency of the litigation, was not taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority and the part of the premises in dispute was erroneously released by the Appellate Authority in favour of the landlord.
(3.) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar, I am of the view that in order to determine the bona fide need of the landlord, authorities under the Act are required to advert, themselves to all the relevant factors, particularly those enumerated in Rule 16(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 in the light of the evidence, whether in the shape of the affidavit or otherwise, brought on record while considering the application for release under clause (a) of sub -section (1) of Section 21 of the Act in respect of a building let out for the purpose or any business. The Prescribed Authority is enjoined with the duty to have regard to such facts as are mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub -rule (2) of Rule 16 of the Rules. Once a decision is arrived at by the Prescribed Authority on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship after a proper self direction to the relevant factors and upon proper consideration of the material on record, the Appellate Authority would normally not interfere with the findings of fact, recorded by the Prescribed Authority even though the Appellate Authority has the same power as are open to the Prescribed Authority from whose decision the appeal is brought and mere possibility of the Appellate Authority coming to a different conclusion on the same facts and evidence will not justify interference under Section 22 read with Section 10(2) of the Act, albeit the Appellate Authority has undoubted duty coupled with the power to review the recorded evidence and draw its own inference and conclusion. As observed herein above, the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority has over looked the material evidence on record having hearing on the question of bona fide requirements and comparative hardship and the matter, in my opinion, requires reconsideration and having regard to the considerable period of time already spent in litigation, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the Appellate Authority for decision afresh in accordance with law in as much as the Appellate Authority has the same power as are open to the Prescribed Authority. Learned Counsel appearing for the landlord, however, urged that instead of remanding the matter this Court may itself consider the material on record and draw its own conclusion and inference on relevant question. Learned Counsel placed reliance upon certain decisions including the one in Smt. (Dr.) D. Kaur v. Smt. Kanti Khare and others : AIR 1982 SC 784. It is true that the High Court has unlimited powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and there is no statutory inhibition except self imposed restriction from examining the evidence not considered by the authorities under the Act and recording its own conclusion on the question of fact, but having regard to the allegations made by the tenants in paragraph 30 of their writ petition, I consider it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Appellate Authority, for it would be convenient for the Appellate Authority to make local inspection, if it considers necessary to do so, in order to determine the bona fide need of the landlord and the comparative hardship that may arise as a result of release application being allowed or rejected, as the case may be. For the parties also it would be convenient to bring on record such events as may have taken place during the pendency of the litigation having on the bona fide requirements of landlord. Accordingly the appellate order dated 18 -12 -1986 is hereby quashed and the Appellate Authority is directed to readmit the appeal to its number and decide it afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment after affording opportunity to the parties expeditiously within a period not exceeding four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The parties, it is believed, shall not seek any undue and undeserved adjournments. The petitions stand disposed of in terms of the above order.;