S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) This is landlords' writ petition arising out of eviction /release proceedings initiated by them against tenant-respondents No. 3 Bashir Ahmad on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Property in dispute is shop, rent of which is extremely nominal about Rs. 30 per month. It was stated in the release application that applicant/ petitioner No. 2 Raeesul Hasan and Shabihul Hasan son of applicant/original petitioner No. 3 Karimunissa were unemployed and shop in dispute was required for both of them. It was further stated that S. Hasan was trained in the work of air conditioning, however, for want of a shop he was unable to do the business properly and he was compelled to do the work of air conditioner repairs and electric work etc. on free lance basis. Prescribed Authority/VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Kanpur Nagar rejected the release application on 13.9.1995 against the said judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority landlord-petitioners filed Rent Appeal No. 165 of 1995, which was dismissed by the V Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 3.10.1996, hence this writ petition.
(3.) The tenant had pleaded that Raeesul Hasan was a teacher in a school and Shabihul Hasan was employed with M/s Mehrotra Air Conditioning Corporation. The Appellate Court has given a very interesting reason for disbelieving the version of the landlord. The Appellate Authority has held that no consumer prefers to get his air conditioner or Fridge repaired from ordinary shop and for the said purpose he approaches the Company or the Shop from where he has purchased the said equipment. The Appellate Authority has further held that minor electric gadgets like fan, heater, motor etc. are got repaired from minor shops but not air conditioner. The Appellate Court wrote the judgment like an expert consumer. I do not agree in the least with the reasoning given by the Appellate Court. Use of electric appliances is rapidly rising and after some time they also require repair. It is not necessary that for repair the consumer must always approach the company or the shop from where he purchased the equipment. The demand of a mechanic depends upon his expertise and good will. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that in case Sabihul Hasan wanted to do the repairing work of A.C. Fridge and other electrical appliances from his shop then it was not bona fide. According to the tenant he (S. Hasan) was doing the said job in another concern. It was never disputed that he has ample experience in the said job. Accordingly in my opinion, findings of both the Courts below that the need of the landlord was not bona fide is patently erroneous in law.;