Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) FIRST writ petition has been filed by the tenants and other two writ petitions have been filed by landlord. Property in dispute consists of a godown, a shop and a kothari (room). Landlord is same and tenants are also same. It appears that three portions were let out at different times hence landlord initiated three eviction/release proceedings against the tenants on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Total rent is Rs. 100/ - per month, Rs. 50/ - per month for godown, Rs. 35/ - per month for the shop and Rs. 15/ - per month for the kothari. The first release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 10 of 1981 and related to the godown. Second release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 11 of 2008 and related to the shop. While the third release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 12 of 1981 and related to the kothari The tenanted portions and the adjoining portions in occupation of the landlord were shown in the map annexed along with release application, copy of which is Annexure -1 to each writ petition. Adjacent to the tenanted godown, there is another godown belonging to and in possession of the landlord. All the three tenanted accommodations are almost adjacent except that in between godown on the one hand and tenanted shop on the other hand, there is a kothari in possession of the landlord. All the three release applications were consolidated and jointly decided by prescribed authority/Munsif, Devband, Saharanpur. All the release applications were dismissed through judgment and order dated 8.11.1983. Against the said judgments and orders, appeals were filed being R.C. Appeals No. 444, 445 and 446, all of 1983, by the landlord. Vth A.D.J., Saharanpur allowed R.C. Appeal No. 444 of 1983, which related to the godown and dismissed the other two appeals through judgment and order dated 30.5.1989, hence these writ petitions by both the parties. Need set up in the release applications was for expanding business of manufacturing copies etc. Landlord was doing business under the name and style of Ma Lakshmi Traders and Book Seller. He also had an agency of paper etc. Landlord was doing business of manufacturing the copies in a shop in the main bazar. Landlord stated that he required the accommodation in dispute for expanding his business and installing a machine for manufacturing copies, rolling machine and cutting machine. Landlord stated that he was doing business along with his two sons. Landlord stated that one of his sons had obtained agency of paper and had started working of manufacturing copies. Lower Appellate Court found that it could not be denied that for expansion of the business of the landlord and his son, installation of cutting machine, rolling machine and stitching machine was essential. Appellate Court also found that if these machines were installed and started functioning, one godown will be required for keeping the finished goods and one room for raw materials. A small shop was also available to the landlord in between the accommodations in dispute, which was being used as garage for car. Lower Appellate Court found that one godown was already in possession of the landlord and if tenanted godown was released, his need, which was quite bona fide, would be fulfilled. Lower Appellate Court also found that landlord and his sons had got their industry registered as small scale industry for the purpose of allotment of quota of paper.
(2.) IT was contended by the tenant that on the first floor of above accommodation in dispute, some accommodation was let out to an advocate by the landlord. The said accommodation was residential and normally heavy machines are not installed on the first floor. In my opinion, judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is eminently just and in accordance with law. Need for commercial accommodation was fully proved by the landlord. Equity has been adjust by leaving kothari and shop in possession of the tenant and releasing the godown in favour of the landlord. Accordingly, I do not find least error in the impugned judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court. All the three writ petitions are therefore dismissed.
(3.) I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J. : 2004 (55) ALR 586, and H.M. Kitchlu v. A.D.J., 2004 (57) ALR 485, that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the said relief already granted by the Courts below, Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.;