- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated 10- 9-2003 to the petitioner/tenant intimating him that he had purchased the building and the shop in question from the erstwhile landlord and owner vide a registered sale-deed dated 9-4-2003 for a sum of Rs. 14 lacs and further intimated him that he intends to carry on a trade or business from the premises in dispute and consequently requested him to make all arrangements for finding an alternate accommodation. This notice was issued in contemplation of the first proviso to Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The said notice was duly received by the petitioner and a reply was also given intimating respondent No. 3 that he was also given a notice from the previous landlord about the sale made by him. On the expiry of the period of three years, the landlord, respondent No. 3, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal need to carry out a trade or business from the premises in question. The respondent contended that he was the owner and landlord pursuant to the sale-deed and was in employment in M/s. Kapoor and Friends and that he had purchased the building in order to do business for himself as well as for his son who is coming of age and that he has the financial capacity to do the business. The respondent further contended that he has no other accommodation where he could carry out his business.
(2.) THE petitioner filed his written statement resisting the claim application of the respondent and admitted that he was the landlord of the premises in question but was not an employee of M/s. Kapoor and Friends and in fact was a partner and that he did not have the capacity to pay a sum of Rs. 14 lacs for the purchase of the building. Further, the respondent had no intention to carry on any kind of business from the premises in question and the entire purpose of filing the application was to enhance the rent. THE petitioner further contended that he had been carrying on the business for the last 40 years from the premises in question and had earned a goodwill and therefore, he would face hardship if he was evicted. THE petitioner further contended that respondent No. 3 had purchased the building from the previous owner who was none other than his employer where he is alleged to be working and that he had purchased the entire building comprising of three floors and that the upper floors could easily be used by the landlord for his business purposes, if any. In the rejoinder affidavit, the landlord denied the allegations made by the petitioner and further gave proof of his financial capacity and the manner in which he had purchased the building. The respondent No. 3 further submitted that he was not a partner in Kapoor and Friends and was only a petty employee. A supplementary counter-affidavit was filed by the petitioner alleging that the value of the building, as disclosed by the landlord, was incorrect and, as per the Government rates, the value was more than Rs. 23 lacs and therefore, contended that the entire sale alleged to have been made by the erstwhile landlord in favour of the present landlord was nothing but a sham transaction in order to file the present application for his eviction. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the material that was brought on record, held that the landlord's need was bona fide and genuine and that he had invested a sum of Rs. 14 lacs in order to do the business. The Prescribed Authority also concluded that it could not have been the intention of the landlord to purchase a building after investing a sum of Rs. 14 lacs in order to earn a paltry amount of Rs. 35/- per month as rent from the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority, further concluded that the transaction of sale made by the landlord- respondent No. 3 was not a sham transaction and that, it was a bona fide transaction, inasmuch as, more than Rs. 2 lacs was spent on stamp duty. Consequently, no person could indulge in such a sham transaction only for the purposes of eviction unless there was a genuine need to do the business from the premises in question. The Prescribed Authority further found that the landlord had the financial capacity and even though he was a paid employee he had regrouped his resources by drawing money from his Personal Provident Fund Account (P. P. F. Account) which had matured and had also borrowed money from his father and wife which was reflected in the bank account of the landlord. The Prescribed Authority also concluded that the landlord was only an employee in M/s. Kapoor and Friends and was not a partner and that the upper for floor of the building was already under tenancy and consequently, could not be used for the business purposes by the landlord.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority further found on comparative hardship that the landlord would suffer more if the premises was not vacated since he had invested a huge amount and had purchased the building only to do some business. On the other hand, the Prescribed Authority concluded that no effort was made by the tenant to find an alternative accommodation and concluded that the provisions of Rule 16 (2) (a) of the Rules was not mandatory and that other factors could also be taken into consideration while considering the comparative hardship between the landlord and the tenant. THE Prescribed Authority concluded that the need of the landlord was greater and genuine since he had purchased the building by investing a huge amount for the purpose of doing business and had not purchased the building to get a meagre rental amount. Consequently, the Prescribed Authority found that the need of the landlord was bona fide and further held that he would suffer more than the tenant. THE Prescribed Authority, consequently, directed for the release of the accommodation in question. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed. The appellate authority also arrived at the same conclusion and confirmed the findings of the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;