AMAR NATH MEHTA Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE BHRASTACHAR NIVARAN GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been made by the tenant who seeks quashing of the judgment and orders of the Courts below whereby the tenanted portion has been released in favour of the landlady in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority while considering the bona fide need of the landlady found that she had 10 members in her family whose need has to been seen. They are living in the house of Sampati Devi who is the landlady's husband's maternal grand- mother. The accommodation consists of two rooms and it was found to be insufficient. The need of the landlady was held to be bona fide. The Prescribed Authority considered the plea of the tenant that one portion of the house was in the tenancy of one Tejinder Singh and in a SCC Suit No. 34 of 1988 the said portion was made available to the landlady by virtue of a compromise arrived at between them and in proceedings under Section 16 of the Act it was released in her favour for commercial purposes. It found that in the said portion the landlady's son Vinod Kumar is doing business under the name and style of Gautam Tent House and hence the portion in question is required by her for residence. On the issue of comparative hardship it has been found that the tenant's son has acquired a house in the city and the family is also residing there, hence if the tenanted portion is released it would not cause hardship to the tenant and if it is not released then hardship would be of the landlady.

(3.) SRI R. C. Singh learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that once the provisions of the Explanation in Section 21 (1) is attracted the objection of a tenant against a release application is not maintainable. He states that the Courts below have rightly concluded that the son of the tenant having acquired a house in the city the comparative hardship was decided in favour of the landlady. He has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Wajid Ali v. XII Addl. District Judge, reported in 1994 (1) ARC 502, and in the case of Ram Prakash v. II Addl. District Judge, reported in 1990 (1) ARC 329. He has further submitted that when concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by both the Courts below then this Court would not interfere in the same in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.