P.N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the tenant of shop No. 236 situate in Kabari Bazar, Hapur. The said shop was purchased by Jai Prakash through registered sale-deed on 23rd October, 1971. The petitioner carried on Halwai business in the said shop. An application was filed by respondent No. 2 under section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, with the allegations that he had completed his education and he wanted to start his furniture business in the disputed shop tenanted by the petitioner. It is also alleged that the father of the landlord had a petty tea shop adjacent to the shop in dispute. The landlord also desired to augment the income of the family. It was further pleaded that the respondent No. 2 had requested the petitioner several times to vacate the shop but he paid no heed to his request. It was also alleged that the tenant had two other shops in his possession in the same Bazar where he could easily shift his Halwai business. The application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the need of the landlord was not genuine and it is not correct to say that he desired to establish his business or support and maintain his family members. It is also alleged that of the two other shops in the tenancy of the petitioner, one was used by him for keeping Kullarh etc. and the other for storing coal etc. which is necessary for carrying on his Halwai shop. In short, the plea was that the need of the landlord was not genuine and the application was liable to be dismissed.
(2.) The Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 7th August, 1973 rejected the application for release of shop No. 236 situate in Kabari Bazar, Hapur, Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed by the landlord which has been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Meerut on 1st June, 1976. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned orders as also the affidavits and annexures filed along with the writ petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of the learned District Judge is erroneous on the face of the record, in as much as, he has not taken the fact into consideration that the alternative accommodation in the name of the mother of the landlord which was available to him had been sold away during the pendency of the appeal. His argument is that if the landlord genuinely desired to do furniture business, the said premises belonging to his mother should not have been sold but should have been utilised for establishing the son's business. I have been referred to paragraph 16 of the reply filed before the prescribed Authority which is an affidavit to the effect that the house belonging to the landlord's mother was in a dilapidated condition and that if sufficient means were available, it could be converted into a habitable accommodation. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the allegations made in paragraph 16 of annexure '3' to the petition amounts to an admission that the house belongs to the mother of the landlord which after arranging money would be-reconstructed and used for residential purposes, and this shows the bogusity of the claim of the landlord. In this connection, I have been referred to paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the landlord in which it is asserted that the house in question belongs to the mother which was in dilapidated condition and had completely fallen down with the result that Rajendra, who was a tenant of the house had vacated the premises. Since the deponent was not possessed of sufficient means to re-construct the house which involved huge expenditure, the said house was sold. In paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit, these allegations have been denied, and there it is asserted that the tenant Rajendra had, prior to vacating his shop, got the roofs repaired and had got new Karis installed therein. It is apparent from a perusal of these affidavits that the house belonging to the mother was certainly not in a good condition at the relevant point of time. The allegations made in the rejoinder affidavit cannot be accepted for the landlord has had no opportunity of rebutting them ; in any case, from the very beginning, the plea has been taken by the landlord that the condition of the premises was dilapidated and that unless funds have been invested therein for repairing, it could not be made into a habitable condition good enough for the family. Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that the said premises did not belong to the landlord but to his mother. The landlord has asked for release of the accommodation in dispute. It would not be fair to non-suit the landlord on the ground that there exists come accommodation belonging to his mother. There is no dispute that the premises, in question, is adjacent to tea stall of his father which has been mentioned in the application. By opening a new shop in this premises, he would also get the assistance of his father who is ready to assist his son in the new project. All these circumstances are very much relevant for the purposes of determining whether the premises sought to be released in favour of the landlord has been really required by him for his bona fide need. The premises had been purchased as far back as in the year 1971 when the landlord was only 16(? 19) years of age. Now he is a young man of 25 years of age and wants to start his furniture business to augment the income of his family. The District Judge was fully justified in holding that the need of the landlord was genuine. It is true that in so many words, he has not said that the comparative need of the landlord qua the need of tenant was more pressing but that is of no consequence. He has held that the tenant has 2 other shops in his possession where he can shift his business. In the impugned order, he has very clearly dealt with the comparative need of both the parties and has ultimately come to the conclusion that the landlord's need is genuine which implies that the landlord's need is greater than that of the tenant.;