OM PRAKASH Vs. BHAGWAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing learned. counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was clearly in error in interfering with the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Varanasi and that of the II Additional District Judge, Varanasi by which they allowed the application made by the appellant under S. 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting; Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Although the Authorities on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was bona fide and he was entitled to the release of the demised premises under S. 21(1)(a) of the Act. Admittedly, the appellant and the respondent are displaced persons and the Authorities held that since the appellant was living in rented premises there was no reason why he should be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of his own property.

(2.) In Bhaichand Ratanshi v. Laxmishanker Tribhovan, (1981) 3 SCC 502 this Court interpreting the analogous provisions in S. 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 observed:

(3.) A plain reading of S. 21(1)(a) of the Act read with the 4th Proviso thereto and R. 16(1)(f) shows that the scheme under the Act is the same. One of the factors prescribed by R. 16(1)(f) is that if the landlord applies for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the accommodation is bona fide required by him for his use and the members of his family and if the landlord offers reasonably suitable accommodation to the tenant for the needs of his family, the landlord's claim for eviction shall be considered liberally. In the present case, the Prescribed Authority and the II Additional District Judge both, after considering the comparative hardship likely to be caused to the tenant and the landlord, recorded a finding that on the refusal of the application, the landlord would be put to greater hardship.