HARISH CHANDRA Vs. SMT. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the concurrent findings of bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded by the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Court in proceedings arising out of an application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The release application was contested by the petitioner-tenant alone by filing written statement contending that the alleged need of the son Sunil Kumar is not bonafide, as he is already doing business of Aata Chakki alongwith his father in the adjoining shop. It is also alleged that the landlady owns several other buildings and she had recently also let out certain shops. The proforma respondents have no concern with the tenancy. Prem Chandra, respondent no.3 is tenant of another shop in building no.40, Sarai Meer Khan, Kotwali, Allahabad. Manik Chandra, respondent no.2 is son from the first wife. It is alleged that he had separated from his father during his life time and has no connection with the shop in dispute. During pendency of the release application, Jugal Kishore, husband of the landlady died on 18.10.1999. The petitioner-tenant thereafter pleaded that now Sunil Kumar is exclusively doing business from his father's shop. He has also installed a big grinding machine in the said shop. His alleged need for settling himself in business of electrical trade thus no more survives.

(3.) The Prescribed Authority held that the business of Aata Chakki and purchoon left behind by Jugal Kishore is being conducted by the landlady, as is evident from various photographs filed vide list 186-A. It is not unusual for Sunil Kumar to sit on that shop, as the shop in possession of the petitioner from where he intends to start business in electrical trade has yet not become available to him. The fact that he has been sitting on the shop of his father, after his death, is not sufficient to infer that his need has come to an end. With regard to comparative hardship, it was held that in the Commissioner's report, one room in vacant condition has been shown as available with the petitioner in house no.24, Malviya Nagar, Allahabad. It could be used by the tenant for his business. The petitioner has not made any effort to search out alternative accommodation despite the pendency of the proceedings since a long time. A sum equivalent to two years' rent has also been awarded as compensation to the petitioner, as provided under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. The appellate court has affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. The appellate court has also observed that in the meantime Sunil Kumar has got married and has three issues (two daughters and one son) and in future he would also need additional space to fulfill the need of his growing family.