SATPAL BOHRA Vs. DEVENDRA SINGH BISHT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the tenant's writ petition arising out of a proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act No. 13 of 1972"). Release application was moved by the landlord/respondent in the year 2012 on grounds that he was a Government employee and now has retired from service in the year 2006 after retirement he needs to establish his business in the premises. He then tried to establish his bona fide need for release of the property in his favour. The Prescribed Authority, however, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to establish his bona fide need since he has not disclosed as to what "business" he proposes to do in the premises in question and he has in any case alternative accommodation, therefore his application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 was rejected. Aggrieved the landlord moved an appeal before the District Judge under Section 22 of Act No. 13 of 1972 which has been allowed. The court below has come to a conclusion that in appeal he has stated that the landlord retired from the post of Sub -Division Engineer from the BSNL and since he has knowledge of electronic equipments, he wants to establish a business relating to electronic items etc. Ultimately his appeal was allowed by the appellate authority.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the tenant has, however, submitted that while allowing the appeal of the landlord, the court below has relied upon Rule 16 (1)(a) & (c) and 16(2)(b) of Act No. 13 of 1972, which reads as under: - -

(3.) ON comparative hardship also it has said that since it has come in the finding that the tenant is in an advance stage of age in his 80's and his son looks after the property. The son, meanwhile, has also passed away and another son of the tenant runs his own business at another place. There is therefore also a determination of comparative hardships. The petitioner/tenant therefore has no case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that in order to remove his equipments from the property in dispute one year time is given to the tenant to vacate the premises. The petitioner/tenant shall handover the peaceful possession of the property in dispute on or before 01.03.2016 to the respondent/landlord and meanwhile petitioner shall regularly deposit the rent.