VINAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. GOMTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant-landlord has questioned the legality of the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated July 30, 2003 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31938 of 2002. By the said order, the High Court affirmed the finding of fact recorded by the Court of prescribed authority and confirmed by the appellate authority recording bona fide requirement of the landlord for getting possession of the suit premises from the Respondent-tenants under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, the Act). The High Court, however, observed in the impugned judgment that during the pendency of proceedings before the appellate forum, the landlord had made an offer to grant alternative accommodation to the tenants of which the landlord has got possession in pursuant of a decree passed in another suit. The High Court observed that the learned Counsel for the tenants fairly accepted that such a relief may be granted in favour of the tenants and, accordingly, an order was passed directing the Appellant-landlord to make available to the tenants, the alternative accommodation in respect of which he has obtained a decree of possession from another tenant.

(2.) The case of the Appellant is that he is the landlord. He required suit premises for his bona fide requirement and hence he initiated the proceedings under Section 21(1) of the Act. The prescribed authority considered the case of the landlord as also the defence put forward by the Defendant-tenants and held that on the facts and in the circumstances, it was proved by the landlord that he required the premises for his bona fide use. Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed against the tenants and in favour of the landlord. Being aggrieved by the said order, the tenants preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority confirmed the finding recorded by the Trial Court and order was affirmed.

(3.) Looking to the relevant provisions of the Act, there is no doubt that there is no further remedy so far as the Act is concerned. In view of the said fact, the Respondent-tenants approached the High Court by filing a writ petition, the High Court observed that both the authorities have held in favour of the landlord with regard to bona fide requirement and there was no infirmity in the said finding.