JAIDEV SADANA Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17-4-2010 (Annexure No. 6 to the petition) passed by the District Judge Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2006 Roshan Lal Vs. Jaidev Sadana, whereby the appellate court has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 13-12-2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Srinagar (for short the Prescribed Authority). The application of the respondent-landlord moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) has been allowed directing the petitioner-tenant to vacate the disputed shop within one month and to handover its vacant possession to the landlord-respondent. The appellate Court also directed the landlord to pay compensation equal to one year's rent to the tenant-petitioner. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent-landlord moved an application for release of the disputed shop under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority alleging on the ground of his bona fide need alleging that the disputed shop has been given on rent to petitioner on monthly rental of Rs. 5 for a period of five years, but the tenant-petitioner has not vacated the disputed shop after the expiry of the stipulated period despite request made by the landlord. The landlord served a notice on 22-3-1987 demanding the petitioner to vacate the disputed shop but the petitioner paid no heed to it. The landlord-respondent filed a case No. 7 of 1993 on the ground of his bona fide need, but the landlord was appointed as Assistant Labour Commissioner and ultimately the case was dismissed in default. The present application has been moved to engage the son of the landlord in business, hence the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was moved.

(2.) The tenant-petitioner resisted the application and filed his written statement. The relationship of landlord and tenant and the rate of rent have been admitted. Rest of the allegations made in the application have been denied. The bona fide need of the landlord-respondent was denied and it was alleged that the son of the landlord was studying in Meerut and he is not competent to run any business as he has no business qualification. The application has been made on illusory grounds. The tenant has no alternative shop to do his business expect the disputed shop and it is the only source of his livelihood. The tenant has earned a goodwill.

(3.) On these pleadings, the Prescribed Authority framed three issues in the case. The first issue related to bona fide need of the landlord-applicant. The second issue related to any alternative shop available to the opposite party for running business and the third issue related to comparative hardship.