J.C. Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard , Sri S. M. Dayal, counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. N. Agrawal and Sri K. M. Dayal, counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) Parties have exchanged affidavits and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
(3.) Some relevant facts may be put in brief. The dispute relates to shop No. 70 situate in Mohalla Pasrat. Jhansi. Undisputedly the respondent No. 2--the landlord moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for the release of the shop on the ground that the same was bona fide required for his son Vijay Kumar Agrawal for doing business. The said application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 30.5.92. It further appears that before the Prescribed Authority, an offer was made to the tenant by the landlord that on account of his being his brother, he was prepared to offer to him the shop which was in his (landlord) occupation on rent. The tenant did not accept that offer instead he filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed by the order dated 25.10.1994. Even before the lower appellate court, the landlord bona fide stuck to the aforesaid offer but the tenant did not show any Inclination to have for his own use the tenanted shop which was in occupation of the landlord. The appeal was dismissed after the parties contested the same on merits. The tenant was still not satisfied and filed Writ Petition No. 35444 of 1994 before this Court. That writ petition was also dismissed on 21.9.1995. A perusal of the said judgment would indicate that the main submission advanced on behalf of the tenant was that the landlord acquired additional accommodation in 1989 but instead of settling his second son. therein the accommodation was utilised for the purposes of godown and as such there was no bona fide need which might indicate the immediate or urgent requirement of the disputed accommodation. This Court examined the said submission and held that it was established from the material on record that the additional accommodation was measuring 6' x 4' only in the residential house and there was no other accommodation available. The size and situation of the above accommodation was not such which could be used in establishing a new business and the same could be utilised only for the godown purposes. The second accommodation in compound No. 70 consisted of two small Kotharies covered by Khaprail and this was also not suitable for establishing the business of Crockery for Anil Kumar. This Court held that the additional accommodation as indicated by the tenant was not available to the landlord to establish his second son and his need for the disputed shop was bona fide and genuine. This Court also further found that on comparing the hardship, the landlord would be put to greater hardship than the tenant who could look for an alternative accommodation. The tenant did not make any effort to search for any alternative accommodation. With these findings, writ petition was dismissed and on the request made on behalf of the tenant, this Court allowed him six months time to vacate the shop in question subject to his furnishing an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within three weeks to deliver peaceful possession to the landlord immediately after six months from the date of the Judgment. It further appears that the tenant did not file any undertaking as ordered by this Court within the time allowed in the order and thereafter an application was moved before this Court for extending the time for filing the required undertaking. However, the said application remained pending and no effort was made by the tenant to get the time for filing an undertaking extended. It further appears that the tenant instead of complying with the order of this Court, approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition there. The Supreme Court on 13.11.95 passed the following orders : "Learned counsel for the petitioners states that respondent No. 1 had stated before the prescribed authority as well as before the appellate authority that one shop would be given to the petitioner. Issue notice to respondent No. 1. Mr. R. D. Upadhyaya. Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. In the meanwhile, there will be stay of the dispossession of the petitioner. Put up after four weeks.";