- (1.) These two connected writ petitions arise out of the Additional District Judge, Saharanpur dated 18.11.1978 dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner of these two petitions. As the points involved in these petitions are common, they can be disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) On 31st October, 1972 Mool Raj Singh, respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord") filed two applications for release of the two portions of a building situated at the Clock Tower, Dehradun Road, Saharanpur against Vishwanath Sabharwal and Laiq Ahmad. Vishwanath Sabharwal was tenant of the portion on the first floor whereas Laiq Ahmad was a tenant of a shop situated not the ground floor. The Third portion of this building was in occupation of the landlord himself. The building had been purchased by the landlord in the year 1971. In the applications filed for release under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the landlord alleged that the building was about more than 200 years old and was in a dilapidated condition and was required to be demolished and reconstructed. He alleged that the accommodation in his occupation was insufficient and that he required the two portions occupied by the aforesaid two tenants. The ground further stated was that the landlord would demolish the building and thereafter make a new building in its place. The landlord asserted that Laiq Ahmad, the tenant of the shop had another premises in his occupation and that he did not require the disputed shop for his personal occupation. With regard to Vishwanath Sabharwal the allegations were that he had an office in the first floor but the said office mostly found closed inasmuch as he had office at Dehradun and that the premises in his occupation was needed by him for his requirement.
(3.) The applications were contested by Vishwanath Sabharwal and Laiq Ahmad the petitioners. They denied that the need of the landlord was bonafide and further claimed that the portion of the building in the occupation of the landlord was sufficient for his requirement. The tenants asserted that the landlord had other buildings available with him and in case he needed the accommodation he could occupy the said buildings. Regarding his own need the case set up by Vishwanath Sabharwal was that he was doing timber and transport business and that the building in question was required by him for running his office. Although he admitted that his office was at Dehradun yet he denied that he had any residential house either in Janakpur or at Saharanpur. Laiq Ahmad also filed a written statement and challenged the allegations made in the application. He did not deny that he had started retreading business at another place and alleged that the premises in dispute was also being ultilised for the business. The allegations were that he was likely to suffer greater hardship.;