- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 6-3-1990 releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondents and the order of the appellate authority-respondent No. 1 dated 16-4-1993 affirm ing the said order in appeal.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a tenant of shop No. 13/708 Bahalkhana situate on the ground floor of the building situate in Bazar Meergani, Kabari Bazar, Saharanpur. THE landlord- respondents filed application under Sec tion 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (In short the Act) on the allegation that the disputed accommoda tion is required for running a clinic by Dr. Praveen Kumar son of Hem Chandra, one of the landlords. THE first and second floor of the building was got vacated by one Shyam Lal but it is in dilapidated condi tion and requires repairs etc. THE first and second floor will be used for residential, purpose and the accommodation in ques tion which is situate on the ground floor shall be used for clinic purpose by Dr. Praveen Kuftiar. THE petitioner, who was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in the plaint, filed objection to the said applica tion. It was stated that Dr. Praveen Kumar does not require the accommodation in question for opening his clinic on the dis puted premises. THE Prescribed Authority allowed the application on 6-3-1990 on the finding that the disputed accommodation is required for Praveen Kumar Mittal for opening his clinic. THE petitioner filed an appeal against the said order. THE appeal was dismissed on 16-4- 1993. THE petitioner has filed the present writ peti tion against these orders. Ave heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents. Sri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the material evidence on the record indicates that Dr. Praveen Kumar Mittal does not require the disputed accommodation. In this respect he has submitted three points. Firstly, it is urged that Dr. Praveen Kumar Mittal, for whom the need of clinic has been set up, has already his clinic at Mohalla Purani Mandi. This aspect has been considered by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. The ap plication for release was filed on 6-9-1982 on the allegation that Praveen Kumar has passed M. B. B. S. and he has completed his Internship and he want to start his private practice at Saharanpur. At the time of filing the application he had just passed M. B. B. S. examination. As there was no available accommodation for him for his medical practice, he took on rent an ac commodation situated at Purani Mandi, Pilkhantala. The mere fact that he had to take on rent an accommodation as the accommodation owned by the landlords was not available does not indicate that his need stands satisfied. Dr. Praveen Kumar Mittal is entitled to have his own accom modation where he can suitably carry on his medical practice. The further case of the landlord is that he will reside on the first and second floors of the building in question and on the ground floor of the disputed accommodation he will have his clinic. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the application filed under Section 21 of the Act itself does not mention this fact. In Paragraph 4 of the application it was stated as under: "the Bailkhana in dispute will meet the requirement for the doctor's profession. The applicants after getting the Bailkhana in ques tion vacated will cause different alteration for it being used by Dr. Praveen Kumar and repairing of the roof of the property in question will also be done as the upper storey will be used for residential purposes and for making it complete accommodation the kitchen, latrine and bathroom will be constructed in the upper storey. Thus, the total property cannot be used without getting the property vacated -from the O. Ps. Phool Chand, grandfather of Dr. Praveen Kumar, filed an affidavit soon after the filing of the application on 1-1-1983. In Paragraph 3 of the affidavit he categorically stated that Dr. Praveen Kumar will establish his clinic in the disputed accommodation on its vacation by the petitioner and will use the upper storey of the said premises for residential purposes. This assertion clearly indicated that he will be using the upper storey of the house for residential purpose and on the ground floor he will have his clinic. "
(3.) THE second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Hem Chand, father of Praveen Kumar, has con structed a residential house at Ahmad Bagh and there Praveen Kumar can start/establish his clinic. In the writ peti tion the details of the accommodation at Ahmad Bagh have not been given. It is, however, clear that Hem Chand was ear lier residing in a different house situate at Chatta Jambu Das, Roop Niwas, Saharan pur. If he had constructed his house for residential purpose, this does not suggest that the need of Praveen Kumar Mittal to reside independently and have his clinic has been satisfied. Father of Praveen Kumar has constructed his own house for residential purpose but that does not sug gest that Praveen Kumar will not have his clinic in the disputed premises and also reside on the upper storey of the premises where the disputed shop is existing. Praveen Kumar is to reside on the first and second floors of the house and on the ground floor in the disputed shop he will have his clinic. The third submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that one Om Prakash was tenant of landlord-respon dents and he had vacated the accommoda tion and that is available to the landlords and if there is any need for Praveen Kumar to establish his clinic, he can utilise such accommodation. The appellate authority has considered this aspect of the case. It has been found that after Om Prakash vacated the disputed accommodation and after its vacation the landlords filed ap plication for release for the need of Sudhir Kumar son of Parmatma Saran one of the landlords. This application was allowed for the need of Sudhir Kumar. This accom modation is, therefore, not available for use of Praveen Kumar. The findings recorded by both the authorities below that the need of landlord-respondents is bona fide and genuine, does not suffer from any manifest illegality. It may further be noted that both the authorities have found that the petitioner has taken another shop at Chakrata Road, Saharanpur bearing shop No. 5/670/2 and carrying on business there. The tenant will not suffer any hardship in the event the application is allowed. Considering the circumstances of the case I do not find any merits in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.;