Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's petition directed against the concurrent orders passed by two authorities rejecting his application filed under sections 21(1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 (for short 'the Act') for release of the disputed accommodation. The dispute relates to shop situated in Mohalla Khatri Tola, Chowk, Azamgarh which is in the tenancy of the respondent No. 1 on a rent of Rs. 10/ - per month. The petitioner -landlord moved an application under sections 21(1)(a) and (b) of the Act for release of the disputed shop. The case set up in the release application was that the disputed shop had fell in his exclusive share in a family settlement and in situate just adjacent to his residential house and his family consists of himself, his wife, five daughters out of which two are married and three sons and the present accommodation available with him is wholly insufficient to accommodate his family. It was further pleaded that since the shop is situate adjacent to the residential house as such after demolishing the same he intends to raise construction for residential purposes. In respect of release sought under section 21(1)(b) the case set up by the petitioner -landlord was that the disputed shop is in a dilapidated condition and is likely to collapse any time and he being in sound financial position after demolition will raise construction for his residential purpose, it was also pleaded that the respondent -tenant has got four storied pucca house at Mohalla Sadavarti from where also he is carrying on his business of sale of lime and paint and he can easily shift his present business in the said accommodation. It was also pleaded that he has got another pucca house in Mohalla Guru Tola. Besides he also owns landed property near the railway station on the main road and as such he will not be put to any hardship if he is evicted from the disputed shop. The release application was contested by respondent -tenant on the ground that he is carrying on business of sale of lime and paint from the disputed shop which is his main source of livelihood. The deplorable and dilapidated condition of the shop was denied. It was further pleaded that the landlord -petitioner has constructed six shops on the ground floor out of which three were let out and if there was any necessity he would have made residential construction instead of shops and some land is still vacant where he can construct rooms for his need and he can also construct room on the upper portion of the newly constructed shops or on the second floor of the residential accommodation. Prescribed authority rejected the release application vide order dated 16.1.1993. Appeal filed by the landlord -petitioner was also rejected by the appellate authority vide order.
(2.) I have heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent -tenant. Learned Counsel for the parties have advanced arguments in respect of release application under section 21(1)(a) as well as 21(1)(b). However, I propose to take up the case set up under section 21(1)(a) of the Act first. It has been vehemently urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the accommodation available with the petitioner -landlord and the size of the family, the bona fide and genuine need was abundantly established but both the Courts below have committed a grave error in rejecting the release application and holding that the need of the petitioner was not bona fide and genuine. It has further been urged that the respondent -tenant has alternative sufficient accommodation available to him where he can shift his business but the said fact has wrongly been ignored by both the Courts below. The next argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the bona fide need of the petitioner -landlord has wrongly been disbelieved on the ground that before filing of the release application, the petitioner had made construction of shops and let out the same inasmuch as the need is to be considered from the date of filing of application of release and not prior to that.
(3.) IN reply it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent -tenant that both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship and the said findings being finding of fact are not open to interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It has further been urged that the petitioner -landlord if was in need of any additional accommodation he could easily construct the same on the top floor of his existing residential house or on the vacant land lying adjacent to his residential house.;