SARJU PRASAD Vs. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri D.C. Jain holding brief of Sri H.S. Sahai, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner -tenant and Sri I.D. Shukla, holding brief of Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondent -landlady.

(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the two orders, one passed by the prescribed authority/Munsif, Sadar, Faizabad on 28.4.1995 by which the application of the landlady filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (Act XIII of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been allowed and the other, order dated 19.3.1999, passed by the appellate authority, i.e., VII It h Additional District Judge, Faizabad, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner was directed to hand over peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondent landlady within one month. Both the learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts on the points of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlady.

(3.) IN addition to above facts, the landlady had further submitted before the prescribed authority that the shop in question was very old; its roof was leaking and the same was in dilapidated condition. She wanted to get the shop demolished and raise a new construction over the land. The landlady had further submitted that the petitioner -tenant Sarju Prasad was not occupying the shop in question. He was working as Munim -cum -Clerk in a firm Bholanath Saligram, Fatehganj, Faizabad. He was a full -time servant of the said firm. He was making illegal demand of Rs. 20,000 from the landlady for vacating the said shop. Accordingly a notice was served on the tenant on 23.7.1984. The tenant refused to vacate the shop in question, vide his reply dated 15.1.1985. As per the landlady, her need for the shop was genuine and bona fide.