Prakash Krishna - (1.) -This is tenant's petition. It arises out of a release application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972), by Ramesh Kumar Kwatra, respondent No. 2 herein, in respect of Property No. 25/10, situate at Chhipi tola, Rakabganj, Agra. The tenanted accommodation consists of seven rooms, three verandah, one courtyard and a big entrance gate situate on the ground floor of the aforesaid Building No. 25/10. The said accommodation is admittedly being used by the tenants for godown purposes and it was let out some time in the year 1900 at the rent of Rs. 169.50 paise per month. The release application was filed on the pleas inter alia that the disputed accommodation of the ground floor is needed by the landlord for opening a hotel. It was further stated that the building in question is ideal for opening a hotel business as there are other hotels nearby. It was also pleaded that except the petitioners, there is one more tenant who has agreed to vacate the disputed accommodation. The landlord pleaded that earlier he was doing cloth business, but he has been total failure in the said business and, therefore, he has closed it down and will start hotel business in the disputed accommodation after making necessary alteration, construction and renovation in the building in question. The landlord also pleaded that he has got five rooms, one kitchen, one verandah, latrine, bathroom and one big open entrance in his possession on the first floor of the building. The terrace on the road side is over the shops. The building in question is situate on main Chhipitola road. The said road goes from Agra Fort Railway Station to Agra Cantt. Railway Station. U. P. Roadways Bus Stand is at a stone throw distance from it. There are other hotels, such as, Devika Hotel, Ajanta Lodge, Calcutta Hotel, Hotel Tilak Raj nearby and surrounding the building in question. Budhist Tourist Hotel and Agra Hotel are on the back of the building in question.
(2.) THE said release application was contested mainly on the ground that the premises in question is not suitable for hotel business as it is situate on a side road. THEre is no proper ventilation and provision for sunlight and air in the rooms which are being used as a godown. Bath room and latrine are also not in sufficient numbers. THE landlord has not filed any sanctioned map or plan for renovating the disputed building as hotel, therefore, his need is not bona fide and genuine. THE plea that the landlord has suffered losses in the cloth business was denied and it was stated that the landlord is carrying on a shoe manufacturing business and dealing in the shoes in the name and style of M/s. Foot and Fit Shoes. The release application was numbered as P.A. Case No. 19 of 1981. The parties filed their affidavits in support of their respective cases. Oral deposition of the landlord Ramesh Kumar Kwatra was also recorded. He was cross-examined by the tenants. On behalf of the tenants, Angan Lal, one of the partners of the petitioner No. 1 firm offered himself in the witness box. His statement was recorded and he was permitted to be cross-examined by the landlord. The prescribed authority by its judgment and order dated 19.2.1992 rejected the release application on the findings that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and genuine. Principally it was found that the building in question is not suitable for hotel business because of its structure and location. The said judgment was challenged in appeal, being R.C.M.A. No. 212 of 1992, which came up for consideration before Vth Additional District Judge, Agra. The appeal, thus, filed by the landlord was allowed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Agra by its judgment dated 11.3.1998. The tenants have challenged the impugned order passed by the court below in the present writ petition. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned senior advocate alongwith Sri Satish Mandhyan for the contesting respondent landlord.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of the writ petition, urged the following points : (1) THE appellate court has not specifically reversed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority on the question of suitability of the tenanted accommodation for hotel business and also the financial incapacity of the landlord to convert the building in question into a hotel ; (2) THE first floor of the disputed House No. 25/10 was got vacated by the landlord. THE need of the landlord stands satisfied by converting the first floor of the disputed House No. 25/10 by using it as a hotel ; and (3) THE appellate court was under a legal obligation to consider the plea of the tenants for part release of the tenanted accommodation. No other point was pressed by Sri Ramendra Asthana, advocate. In response, Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned senior advocate for the landlord-respondent submits that the petitioners-tenants have got number of properties in their possession. During the pendency of the appeal before the court below, they have constructed a godown of 15' x 25' which was earlier in occupation of one Dr. Awadhesh Sharma, being Property No. 29/103 as a tenant who vacated it. The newly constructed godown is just opposite to the present godown which is subject-matter of the writ petition. The petitioners-tenants have got two hotels, being Property No. 25/13, Chhipitola, namely, Hotel Indraprasth and Varun Hotel and six shops therein. Besides the above, a copy of the assessment list for the assessment year 1981-86 issued by the Municipal Corporation was filed before the prescribed authority which shows that the tenants have got several premises, such as, 29/98, 25/13, 30/129, 29/248, 29/252, 30/135, 28/108 and 30/127. All these properties are recorded in the name of the petitioners as owners. Besides these properties, they have also got property No. 7 popularly known as Tal and is situate just opposite to the property in question and which is a two storey building. His submission, in nut-shell, is that the findings recorded by the appellate court are based on relevant consideration and in view of the fact that the petitioners-tenants are very rich persons and have got various commercial properties in the shape of godowns, shops and hotels, the present writ petition should be dismissed with heavy costs payable to the landlord as the petitioners have abused process of the Court and have obtained the stay order just to deprive the landlord to have occupation of the disputed accommodation as the said property is fetching practically no rent.;