S.D.AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The property in dispute is a garrage and a kothari behind the same situate in a portion of house No. 3/232, Krishna Kunj Khwaja Qutub East (Beharipur) Bareilly. The petitioner is the tenant. Respondent No. 2 is the landlord. He is a practising Doctor. He filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for release of the garrage and the kothari on the ground that he requires it for keeping his car which has to be used to attend the patients whenever he is called out. His further case was that the property in dispute was let out to the petitioner, who used to keep straw in the garrage and his servant used to live in the kothari. His further case was that the petitioner was doing dairy business in the nearby open land of Sri Madan Mohan and the petitioner used to keep his tonga and horse in connection with the same.
(2.) THE petition was contested by the petitioner on the ground that he is the tenant of the garrage and the kothari since 1957 when it was allotted to him and since then he is doing the work of sweet-meat shop in this garrage. It was further alleged that respondent-landlord does not own a motor car and he in fact, owns a scooter and, consequently, the need of the landlord-respondent was not bonafide and genuine. The Prescribed Authority by its judgment dated 20.10.1981 came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was not bonafide and genuine and, consequently, the application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was dismissed. Against the said judgment, an appeal was filed by the landlord under Section 22 of the Act. The appeal came up for hearing before the Vth Additional District Judge, Bareilly, who by judgment dated 12th December, 1984 allowed the appeal and released the accommodation in favour of respondent No. 2. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12th December, 1984 by means of the present petition in this Court.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended, firstly, that the finding in regard to the bonafide need is based on irrelevant consideration and on mere conjectures and as such, the finding is vitiated in law. His second submission is that the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the Second Proviso to Section 21 of the Act and since there was no order to that effect, the order of release cannot be sustained. The third argument which has been set up is in regard to the applicability of Rule 16(1)(d) of the Rules framed under the Act.;