SHIV MURAT Vs. IIND ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. The present petition arises out of proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act and is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-11-1996 passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 1) under Section 2 of the said Act allowing the appeal filed by the contesting landlord. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the landlords, respondents No. 2 to 4 filed an application for release of the shop in ques tion for their personal use and occupation. In brief, it was pleaded that their need for shop in question was genuine and bona fide as they wanted to settle their sons in business, and that in case their application was rejected, they would suffer comparatively greater hardship than the hardship of the petitioner/tenant in the event the applica tion was allowed. The petitioner objected to and opposed the said application. The Prescribed Authority, after perusing the material on record, recorded findings on the question of bona fide need and com parative hardship in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the application vide judgment and order dated 2-3-1995. Challenging the validity of the said order, landlords filed an appeal before the Ap pellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and the ap plication for releasing the shop in question vide its judgment and order dated 22-11-1996, hence the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Authority is illegal and manifestly erroneous. It was urged that the Appellate Authority reversed the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority without revers ing the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on which the said judgment was based. It was also urged that the Appellate Authority was not right in holding that the petitioner did not make efforts to search an alternative residential accommodation, therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Munna Lal v. IVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1997 ARC 378, it can be held that the need of the petitioner was not genuine and bona fide and that he occupied the shop in question unnecessarily.

(3.) THE Appellate Authority was also not right in holding that as the petitioner did not make efforts to search out the alternative accommodation, therefore, his need cannot be said to be genuine and bona fide, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Babu Ram alias Babu Lal v. Additional District Judge (Spe cial Judge), Rampur and others, where this Court held in Para 14, as under: "so far as the question of search of alter native accommodation by the petitioner is con cerned without differing with a view taken by this Court in some of the decisions that the tenant should search for alternative accom modation to meet his requirement, I would like to say that question of search arises only when it is proved or at least suggested by the landlord that alternative building commercial or residen tial, as the case may be, were available in the locality or elsewhere. In the present case, the landlord neither suggested nor proved that any alternative accommodation was available and the petitioner could shift his business to that shop, therefore, there was no question of search of alternative accommodation. "