RAM NARAIN Vs. SHREE NARAIN TRIVEDI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenants' writ petition filed against the judgment and order dated August 5, 1981 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur allowing thereby the appeal filed by the landlord -opposite party No. 1 against the orders of the Prescribed Authority dismissing the landlord. Opposite party No. 1's application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Brief facts for the purposes of deciding the present writ petition are that the family of the landlord, opposite -party No. 1 consisted of himself, his wife, two sons and two daughters when the application was moved. The accommodation which was in his possession comprised of one room on the first floor and a kothari besides chhajja and another room on the second floor with roof. Latrine and pipe are in common on the Court yard in the ground floor. It has also been alleged that Anil Kumar had obtained Diploma in Tailoring from the I.T.I., Kanpur and intended to run school in part of the premises on commercial lines and for that purposes he had applied for loan to the Bank of Baroda. It was alleged that the accommodation available with the landlord -opposite party No. 1 was short for residential purposes as well and the tenant -petitioner had shifted his residence to House No. 109/51, Nehru Nagar belonging to him.

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority accepted the revision put forward by the tenant -petitioner and recorded a finding that the accommodation of the possession of the landlord -opposite party No, 1 was sufficient and the tenant -petitioner would suffer greater hardship than the landlord -opposite party No. 1 in case of eviction of the tenant -petitioner.

(3.) THE other question which has to be adjudicated is regarding the question of comparative hardship. It has not been disputed that the tenant petitioner has shifted to another accommodation i.e. House No. 109/51, Nehru Nagar and one of the tenants in the aforesaid House No. 109/51 i.e., Y.K. Gupta has vacated two rooms and a kitchen in May 1978 and the same were also available to the tenant -petitioner. At the present moment the predominant use of the accommodation under the tenancy in dispute by the tenant is for running a small Parchoon shop on the ground floor. In my opinion the District Judge has rightly held that the character of the business is not such as to suggest that the cannot shift the same without there being substantial loss. In any view of the matter the finding recorded on the question of comparative hardship cannot be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence requiring interference by this Court in exercise of its extra -ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no orders, as to costs.