ARUN KUMAR Vs. RAMWATI DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the aforesaid two writ petitions involve similar questions of law for determination, therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity and convenience.

(2.) The petitioners in both these petitions are landlords. They filed applications for release of the shops in question on the ground of their requirements under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act 13 of 1972) before the Prescribed Authority, Haldwani, District Nainital. It was stated in the applications that the respective petitioners have purchased the respective shops in question from their owners by means of registered sale deeds. They do not have any other place for doing their business and, therefore, the shops in question be released in their favour. The predecessors of the respective respondents were tenants of the respective shops in question. The application for release was opposed by the tenantsrespondents alleging that the petitioners have sufficient accommodation at their disposal and the petitioners have no need for the shops in question. The learned Prescribed Authority in the case of Arun Kumar upheld the need of the petitioner landlord but dismissed the application holding that several accommodations are available to the petitioner and, therefore, his need cannot be said to be bonafide and also that comparative hardship is not in favour of the petitioner-landlord. Learned Prescribed Authority in the case of Ajay Kumar upheld the bonafide need of the petitioner landlord and allowed the release application of the landlord-petitioner.

(3.) Aggrieved against the decision of the Prescribed Authority, in the case of Arun Kumar, the landlord-petitioner as well as the tenants-respondents filed appeals before the District Judge, Nainital. Learned Addl. District Judge / F.T.C. Haldwani dismissed the appeal filed by the landlord-petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the tenants-respondents holding that the landlord-petitioner has no need for the shop in question. Aggrieved against the decision of the Prescribed Authority, in the case of Ajay Kumar, the tenantsrespondents filed appeal before the District Judge, Nainital. Learned Addl. District Judge, Nainital allowed the appeal filed by the tenants-respondents holding that the landlord-petitioner has no need for the shop in question. Aforesaid writ petitions have been filed by the landlord-petitioner for quashing the orders passed by the Addl. District Judge and the Prescribed Authority.