Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THIS is tenants writ petition. It is directed against the order dated 29th of October, 1996 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Meerut in Misc. P.A. Appeal No. 231 of 1995 whereby the Court below has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner who is tenant of a disputed shop measuring 8 ft. x 8 ft. being shop No. 1102 situate at P.L. Sharma Road, Meerut. The said shop was purchased by the landlord on 16th of October, 1991. An application for release under section 21(1)(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed on the ground that landlord is an advocate by profession and he needs the disputed shop to open his chamber. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine and he would suffer greater hardship in case the release application is rejected. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed. Shri Siddharth, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that impugned orders are vitiated as they have been passed in teeth of second proviso to section 21 of the Act. He further submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent landlord has purchased a big residential property and the need, if any, of the landlord respondent has vanished. In response Shri Sumit Daga holding brief of Shri Amit Daga submits that the findings recorded by two Courts below are findings of fact and as such no case for interference has been made out by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He volunteers to pay compensation as required under second proviso to section 21 of the Act. He further submits that even if respondent landlord has purchased some property during the pendency of the writ petition, that would have no bearing on the need of the landlord for opening his chamber. I have given careful consideration to the respective submissions of the landlord for the parties. Second proviso to section 21 of the Act provides that if any building is being released under clause 1(a) of section 21(1) which was let out exclusively for none residential purposes, the Prescribed Authority while making order of eviction shall after consideration of relevant facts award against the landlord to the tenant an amount not exceeding two years rent as compensation and may subject to rules, impose such other conditions as he thinks fit. Indisputably, in case on hand, the tenancy was at the rate of Rs. 25/ - per month. Maximum compensation amount, if calculated under the aforesaid proviso, comes to Rs. 600/ -. The impugned orders are, therefore, modified accordingly and the respondent landlord is directed to deposit pay a sum of Rs. 600/ - towards the compensation under the aforesaid proviso to the petitioner tenant. The said amount shall be deposited within a period of one month before the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) SO far as the question that the landlord respondent has purchased some property during the pendency of the writ petition is concerned, the same is not relevant as the release order which was passed by two Courts below had attained finality. The Apex Court in the case of Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumayee Agarwal : 1997 (30) ALR 307 (SC), has held that if subsequent event takes place during the pendency of writ petition, that will not affect finality attached to a release order passed by the Court below. The learned Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machiners and Co. : 2000 (38) ALR 458 (SC), wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that it is settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. He has also relied upon Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash : 2004 (55) ALR 319 (SC) : 2004 (17) AIC 51, for the proposition that in such matters High Court should not act like a Court of appeal.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition except that the petitioner is entitled for compensation as provided for in the second proviso to section 21 of the Act.;