M.P. Saxena, J. - (1.) These are two petitions viz. Nos. 877 and 1271 of 1976 by Karan Singh and Smt. Phul Kumari Jain respectively against the order of the learned First Additional District Judge, Bulandshar dated 1.5.1976.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that shops Nos. 34 and 35 and Balakhana No. 36 existing over the said shops are situate in Mohatla Chowk Bazar in the town of Bulandshar. Shop No. 34 was in the occupation of Karan Singh, petitioner in writ petition No. 877 of 1976 and he was doing the business of a barber in that shop. Shop No. 35 was in the tenancy of Champa Ram against whom writ petition No. 1271 of 1976 is directed. He was doing the work of goldsmith in it. Balakhana No. 36 was in the tenancy of Gokul Chand. Smt. Phul Kumari purchased the shops and the Balakhana on 11th of May, 1970, for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for her own use. Shortly thereafter she moved an application under section 3 of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1947, (U.P. Act No. III of 1947) for permission to file a suit for eviction against all the there tenants on the ground that she needed the premises for her own needs. She gave out in her application that she was married to one Ramesh Chandra but he deserted her. She had to take shelter at her father's house and decided to educate herself. She passed B.A. Examination and then took studies in Ayurvedic medicines and obtained the degree of Vaidya Visharadha in the year 1964. In 1968 she passed the Ayurved Ratna Examination. In June 1909 she was registered as a Medical Practitioner by the Board of India Medicines. According to her, she wanted to settle herself in the profession of midwifery and Ayurvedic medicines but she had no accommodation for that purpose. She needed the Balakhana for her own residence, for the convenience of her-patients. The application was resisted by all the three tenants, inter alia, on the grounds that the landlady did not require the premises and that they would suffer irreparable loss in case they were evicted from their premises.
(3.) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 21.2.1972 allowed the application under section 3 against Karan Singh and Gokul Chand in respect of the premises Nos. 34 and 36 but rejected it against Champs Lal in respect of shop Nos. 35. Aggrieved by this judgment Smt. Phul Kumari filed one revision under section 3(3) of U.P. Act III of 1947 against Champa Lal. Karan Singh and Gokul Chand filed two separate revisions against the order granting permission to file a suit for their eviction. During the pendency of these revisions the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the new Act) came into force and the said revisions stood transferred to the learned District Judge. They were decided as appeals as provided under the new Act. The revision filed by Smt. Phul Kumari against Karan Singh was dismissed while the revisions filed by Karan Singh and Gokul Chand were allowed and the permission granted against them was set aside. This order was passed on 31.10.1972. I hereafter Smt. Phul Kumari filed a writ petition in this Court against all the three tenants. It was decided by this Court on 18.8.1975. The tenants plea was that Smt. Phul Kumari was living with her husband and had purchased the house by his means but this Court came to the conclusion that the husband had deserted Smt. Phul Kumari and she got no assistance from him in the matter of purchase of this building. On the other hand assistance was offered by her father. It was also held that relations between Smt. Phul Kumari and her husband were highly strained and there was no question of her availing of the accommodation belonging to or possessed by her husband. However, the learned District Judge had recorded no finding regarding need of the landlady and this Court observed : "I find that the learned District Judge committed an error in allowing the appeal filed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and in dismissing the one preferred by the petitioner. But dealing with this case under Article 226 of the Constitution it is not open to him to record a finding about need of the petitioner in these proceedings. I have to send the case to the learned District Judge for deciding the appeal afresh after looking into the entire record." In view of the aforesaid the writ petition was allowed and the order of the District Judge dated 31.10.1972 was quashed and the District Judge was directed to dispose of the Civil Revisions (Appeal) afresh. In pursuance of the aforesaid order all the three appeals viz. Nos. 34, 39 and 43 of 1972 filed by Karan Singh Smt. Phut Kumari Jain and Champa Lal respectively came up for disposal before the learned First Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr. After going through the entire material on the record he came to the conclusion that Balakhana No. 36 was genuinely required by her for her residence. As regards Sher requirement for midwifery work, he held that it can be fulfilled if only one of the shops was permitted to be occupied by her. In his opinion the shop No. 34 could fulfil her needs and there was no necessity to grant permission for eviction of Champa Lal from shop No. 35. As regards need of the tenant, he observed that it was immaterial whether the need of the tenant was greater than that of the landlord because comparison of hardships was not necessary for according permission under section 3 of the old Act. Accordingly all the three appeals were dismissed. It may be reiterated that Civil Appeals Nos. 34 and 43 of 1972 were filed by Karan Singh and Gokul Chand in respect of shop No. 34 and Balakhana No. 36 and Appeal No. 39 of 1972 was filed by Smt. Phut Kumari against her tenant Champa Lal.;