RAM SWAROOP Vs. MAHESH CHANDRA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has filed this appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad by which the writ petition filed by the tenant was dismissed.

(2.) The factual position needs to be noted in brief.

(3.) Mahesh Chandra Jain (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord") filed an application for release of Shop No. 559 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short "the Act"). The reason for seeking eviction was that there was need to expand the clinic of his son, Dr. Jinesh Chandra Jain. The application was rejected by the prescribed authority by order dated 19-11-1992. An appeal was carried by the landlord and the same was allowed by order dated 28-5-1996. It was held that there was a bona fide need for the premises in question. A writ petition was filed. In the writ petition, it was submitted that the landlord on an earlier occasion had filed an application under Section 21 of the Act which was rejected and, therefore, the subsequent application which formed the subject-matter of controversy before the High Court was not maintainable. The need of the landlord was not bona fide and his son Dr. Jinesh Chandra Jain had already a clinic in the adjacent Shop No. 560 and he could practise from his residence. The finding recorded regarding comparative hardship was also without any foundation.