Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions arise out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord Anurag Agarwal against his three tenants Vijay Kumar Tandon and Tirath Prasad Mishra petitioners in the first two writ petitions and Rajeev Bhatia respondent in the third writ petition in the form of P.A. Case No. 9 of 1998 on the file of Prescribed Authority, Allahabad oh the ground of bonafide need under section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Each of the three tenants is in tenancy occupation of one shop belonging to the landlord Anurag Agarwal and all the three shops are adjacent to each other. The middle shop is occupied by the tenant Rajeev Bhatia. Both the Courts below allowed the release application against tenant Teerath Prasad Mishra and Vijay Kumar Tandon and rejected the same against Rajeev Bhatia. The prescribed authority, Allahabad passed the order on 18.3.2005. Against the said order three appeals were filed being Appeal Nos. 53, 67 and 64 of 2005. The first appeal was by the landlord and the other two appeals were by tenants Vijay Kumar Tandon and Teerath Prasad respectively. All the three appeals were dismissed by A.D.J. Court No. 5, Allahabad on 6.12.2005 hence these writ petitions. Both the Courts below have recorded self -contradictory findings. The prescribed authority towards the concluding portion of its long judgment held -that landlord was crorepati having a small family and no big responsibility and it was very strange that in spite of being crorepati landlord was calling himself unemployed and there did not appear any difficulty for the landlord to run his life, that assertions made by applicant in the release application were contradictory and his case appeared to be concocted story on the basis of legal advice. It was further held that neither landlord could show good faith nor bonafide need and he had not come to Court with clean hands and he failed to prove the allegations in the release application. Strangely enough, in spite of all these findings, in the last paragraph before operative portion, prescribed authority held that even though the case of the applicant (landlord) was quite weak however, it was in the interest of justice to grant some relief to him hence it would be appropriate to release the two shops in tenancy occupation of Teerath Prasad and Vijay Kumar Tandon. In the last but one paragraph it was held that as far as tenant -Rajiv Bhatia was concerned he was having lot of responsibilities, his father had died and his wife was ill and apart from the shop in dispute he had no other commercial accommodation hence his hardship was much more than that of the landlord. Prescribed authority further held that T.P. Misra and V.K. Tandon tenants did not seriously contest the proceedings and did not file any affidavit in rebuttal of affidavit 117 -B.
(2.) AS far as Appellate Court is concerned it observed in its judgment on page 109 of the paper book that Teerath Prasad and Vijay Kumar Tandon the two tenants had not contested the proceedings as was evident from affidavit 117 -B hence the main dispute was between landlord and Rajiv Bhatia one of the tenants. Thereafter, Appellate Court held that landlord possessed property worth crores of rupees, was having a four storied house behind the shop in dispute which was situate in an important commercial centre i.e. Katra, that he was having 300 sq. yards land in Laxmi Complex compound. Thereafter, the reasoning given by the Trial Court (quoted above in this judgment) was independently given by the Appellate Court. Ultimately it was held that neither, the landlord had good faith nor bonafide need and he had not come with clean hands. The Appellate Court virtually quoted word by word the ultimate findings of the prescribed authority as its own findings. Strangely enough thereafter on page 111 of the paper book while discussing the case of Teerath Prasad and V.K. Tandon the tenants Appellate Court held that landlord had a wife and two children and he had no business hence it appeared that he had bonafide need for two shops out of which in one he could carry out his own business and in the other his wife could open beauty parlour. The finding of the bonafide need of the landlord recorded by the Appellate Court while discussing his case against Teerath Prasad and V.K. Tandon on the one hand and against Rajiv Bhatia on the other hand are utterly contradictory. If a landlord files one release application against several tenants of different building's then it is impossible that against one tenant there may be bonafide need of the landlord while in the case against other tenant he cannot have any bonafide need. In the instant case only one case was filed against three tenants. Either landlord had bonafide need or no bonafide need. It was possible to distinguish the cases of different tenants on the ground of comparative hardship. However, the question of comparative hardship arises only if landlord proves his bonafide need. The prescribed authority did a wonderful thing by observing that even though landlord had no bonafide need still he deserve some relief in the interest of justice. The Appellate Court even though observed that such finding was not correct still it also did virtually the same thing. While considering the appeal of the landlord against Rajeev Bhatia Appellate Court categorically found that landlord had no bonafide need however in the very next paragraph (on the next page) while discussing case of other two tenants the Appellate Court observed that landlord had bonafide need.
(3.) THE affidavit (117 -B) was filed by Rajiv Bhatia, one of the tenants as is mentioned in the judgment of prescribed authority on page 61 of the paper book of the first writ petition hence there was no question of filing its reply by the other two tenants. The other two tenants i.e. V.K. Tandon and T.P. Misra filed written statement and affidavits denying the allegations of landlord. This was sufficient contest. If their advocates did not advance unnecessarily lengthy arguments, as observed by prescribed authority, then the prescribed authority should have been thankful to them instead of demolishing them. These two tenants also filed appeals and have come up to this Court through these writ petitions. This shows real contest. Moreover both the Courts below recorded a categorical finding that landlord had no bonafide need. The two tenants nowhere admitted bonafide need of landlord. In para -3 of the release application it was clearly stated that: The big departmental store at large scale is not possible in one or two disputed shops i.e. The applicant needs all the three disputed shops for his personal need and business for opening big departmental store.;