RAM KUMAR BARNWAL Vs. RAM LAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court came to the conclusion that even if it is found that the decisions of the Courts below are erroneous in law, the matter needs to be remanded to the prescribed authority. A release petition was filed by the appellant claiming to be the landlord under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act).

(3.) The background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows: Appellant is the owner and the landlord in respect of disputed shop situated in Mohalla Asifganj, Azamgarh City, Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1947 respondent No.1 Ram Lakhan was inducted as a tenant in the shop in question on monthly rent of Rs.40/- by the then owner. In the year 1952 the disputed shop was purchased by the appellants mother Smt. Pyari Kunwar. After the death of his mother, appellant became owner of the property. Family of the appellant at that time was very small. Since appellant hadd/ no commercial space available he was carrying on business in a shop belonging to one Shri Jagannath which he had taken on rent. During the pendency of the case before the High Court, the appellant was evicted from the said shop and he has no other premises to carry on the business. Appellant has three sons. Apart from the disputed shop, the appellant had another small shop adjacent to it. As appellants son Asthbujhi Prasad wanted to carry on business the said shop is being used by him. Appellants two other sons are unemployed and one of them has completed Chartered Accountancy course. Due to non-availability of commercial space, the said son Kameshewar Prasad had to set up his office at a distance of 100 Kms. Since respondent No.1 was repeatedly committing default in payment of rent to the mother of the appellant, a suit had been filed (Suit No. 23 of 1970) for ejectment of respondent No.1 on the ground of default. Though suit was decreed upto second appeal stage, in appeal the order of ejectment was set aside by this Court by judgment dated 30.11.1976, as respondent No.1 had started depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act. In 1980, appellant moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The same was resisted by the respondent. The Prescribed Authority on the report of the Commissioner, who was appointed to make inspection of the premises, held that the eviction petition was not maintainable. The First Appellate Authority upheld the order of rejection by the Prescribed Authority. Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning correctness of the judgment and order dated 22.4.1983 of the Appellate Authority affirming order of the Prescribed Authority. Appellant brought to the notice of the High Court that he had been evicted from the tenanted premises where he was carrying on business and, therefore, he was left with no accommodation to earn his livelihood. The High Court, as noted supra, held that even if it is found that the findings of the courts below are erroneous in law the matter has remanded to the Prescribed Authority as the release application was filed quarter of century ago, and bona fide need, and comparative hardship change by the passage of time. The writ petition was dismissed granting liberty to the appellant to file fresh release application.