MUNNI LAL Vs. VIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant of the accommodation in question, which is non-residential accommodation (shop), has challenged the order passed by the lower appellate court dated 31st August, 2005 in Rent Appeal No. 1 of 2002, whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'II' to the writ petition.

(2.) The facts of the present case are that the respondent-landlord filed an application in the year 1998 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'the Act', for release of the aforesaid accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondent in this petition, on the ground that the landlord's son, namely Ajay Kumar is in IIIrd year B.Sc. and the landlord wants to settle her son in the business of wholesale medicines for which the accommodation in question is suitable and that the landlord has also entered into correspondence for wholesale dealership. The landlord has sufficient financial resources to settle her son, who is unemployed, in the wholesale medicines business. The landlord further asserted that the accommodation in question is in fact is not utilised for any business by the tenant, but the tenant is utilizing the same only for after-noon siesta, as the business of the sale of gun is carried out by the tenant in another accommodation. In these circumstances, the landlord-respondent asserted that the tenant will have no hardship in case the accommodation in question is released in favour of the landlord.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant denied the aforesaid allegations of the landlord and submitted that in fact the landlord has no bona fide requirement and it is also incorrect to say that no business is carried out by the tenant from the accommodation in question. The premises is utilized for repair of the gun and afternoon siesta by the tenant and his son, who is patient of high blood pressure. On the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record and after hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the prescribed authority has arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide and that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord. The prescribed authority therefore by the order dated 15th January, 2002, allowed the application filed by the landlord and directed the release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord-respondent.