Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) This was a simple case. Difficulties have arisen due to the passage of time. It was more than thirty years ago that Dr. Kalindi Mittal, (the landlady for short) filed an application. It was to obtain permission under Section 3 of U. P. Temporary (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1947 (the old Act for short) to file a suit to evict the tenant on the ground of her personal need. With the passage of time, new equity, new laws have come up, complicating the case. These are the vagaries of 'time consuming litigation' ; leaving one in doubt, which side Themis' is. But then I have to do my bit, take a decision and side with one on whose side Themis is. In short, it is a landlords' writ petition against the orders dated 21.5.1981 and 6.5.1980 rejecting their application under Section 21 (1) read with Section 43 (rr) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short). FACTS
(2.) Dr. Kalindi Mitter (the landlady) was the owner of the building situate at 7/152 Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur. She was doctor by profession. Smt. Sushila Saighal, respondent No. 3 is the tenant. The landlords wanted to open a clinic in the premise in dispute. She filed an application under the old Act in late 1950's for obtaining permission to file a suit. The District Magistrate dismissed this application and this order was upheld. Subsequently, she filed second application in March 1966. The District Magistrate ultimately granted permission to file suit on 9.12.1968. The tenant filed a revision against this order under the old Act. During pendency of the revision, the Act came into force. The revision filed by the tenant was transferred to District Judge under Section 43 (2) (m) of the Act. It was dismissed on 22.9.1973. The tenant filed a Writ Petition No. 6609 of 1973, Mrs. K.L. Saigal v. IInd A.D.J. Kanpur, against the same. It was also dismissed on 12.03.1976. Few paragraphs of this judgment will explain this part of the case. The Court held : "The Addl. District Judge rightly pointed out that the respondent No. 4 was a lady doctor (the landlady) in Gynaecology and, therefore, one can take note of the fact that a large number of patients must have been visiting her at odd hours and as her nursing home at present is situate at a distance of 3 miles from her residence, it is not only most inconvenient to respondent No. 4, but her patients must have been put to substantial discomfort and trouble. This is really a genuine ground, which was rightly taken into account by the Addl. District Judge as well as the prescribed authority for finding that her need was genuine..... On the question of greater hardship, the learned District Judge was required to consider whether the petitioner (the tenant) had an alternative accommodation available for her residence. Accordingly he rightly found that as the petitioner's (the tenant) husband has his own house, she would not suffer in case she was evicted from the premises. Another finding which was given by the learned Addl. District Judge on the question of greater hardship was that the husband of the petitioner is a rich man and that he could afford to take another house at a higher rent. Counsel for the petitioner attacked this finding of the learned Addl. District Judge pointing out that an application made by a landlord against a tenant cannot be allowed on this ground as this will frustrate the very object of the old Act for which it was enacted. Be that as it may, it appears to me that what the appellate court intended to convey was that since litigations are going on between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for the last several years and as the petitioner does not have any financial, difficulty, she could solve her problem of accommodation by taking another."
(3.) The landlady after dismissal of the writ petition filed an application on 29.3.1976 under Section 21 read with Section 43 (2) (rr) of the Act for the eviction of the tenant. She died during pendency of this application and petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are her heirs. They sold off the property to petitioner Nos. 4 to 9. They now have become landlords of the premises in dispute. The Prescribed Authority dismissed this application on 6.5.1980. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 21.5.1981. Hence the present writ petition. SUBMISSIONS--POINT FOR DETERMINATION;