- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenants- respondents No. 3 to 5 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Release application was registered as P. A. Case No. 80 of 1989 and was rejected on 23-2-1993 by Prescribed Authority/8th A. C. J. , Meerut. Against the said judgment and order, landlord-petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 90 of 1993. 10th A. D. J. , Meerut, through the judgment and order dated 4-2-1994, dismissed the appeal, hence this writ petition. Property in dispute is a shop. It was alleged in the release application that Narendra Nath Verma, Respondent No. 3, was the tenant and Prithvipal Verma, Respondent No. 4, was his real brother, who was carrying on business from the shop in dispute in the name and style of Respondent No. 5 M/s New Beauty Palace. It was alleged that in case Respondents No. 4 and 5 were found to be tenants, then eviction order be passed against them also. It was further alleged in the release application that Ravi Gupta, the son of the landlord, could not get any service, hence he started doing contract work by supplying furniture to Government and Semi-Government Departments on small level, and that he wanted to establish his business of making and retail selling furniture and shop in dispute was required therefor. It was also alleged that the dimensions of the shop in dispute were 21 x 31 feet and it was situate in a market, which was most suitable for furniture business and that towards back portion of the shop in dispute on the eastern side, landlord had sufficient accommodation available for making the furniture and the said place was covered by tin shed and also contained a room to be used as store. It was also alleged by the landlord that Ravi Gupta (his son) was not keeping good health, hence he wanted to switch over his business of supply of furniture on contract basis, as it required lot of physical activity. The Trial Court found that the son of the landlord was doing the business of supplying furniture in the name and style of West End Engineering Company and supply was mainly confined to M. E. S. (Military Engineering Service) and from the said business, he was earning good income. Some medical certificates were also filed by the landlord to show the physical condition of his son, particularly of his heart. Landlord had pleaded that for two or three years, his son had not taken any fresh contract. This version was not found to be correct. The Prescribed Authority found that the need was neither bona fide nor pressing and the main reason for filing release application was that the tenant had refused to enhance the rent of shop in dispute from Rs. 180/- to Rs. 335/- per month.
(3.) MEERUT is a very important city of Uttar Pradesh and situate near Delhi. Shop in dispute is quite big in area and situate in an important market. Current rent of the shop in dispute must not be less than Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. In 1980s and early 1990s, it was considered almost indecent for the landlord to entertain any desire of enhancing the rent. The same approach has been shown by the learned Prescribed Authority in his judgment. It was also stated on behalf of the tenant that another tenant of the same landlord of an adjoining shop had enhanced the rent, hence, no eviction proceedings were initiated against him. If out of two tenants, one starts paying appropriate rent and landlord chooses the other tenant, who is not paying good rent for seeking eviction for bona fide need, then absolutely no fault can be found. This action of the landlord is based on sound economic principle. The tenants had pleaded that they were carrying the business of selling shoes since 1959 and their business was quite good.;