MADHUSUDAN KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the dispute relates to a shop on the ground floor of House No. 15, Shahganj, Leader Road Allahabad. The contesting -respondents No. 3 and 4 Smt. Chunni Devi and Prakash Chandra are mother and son and are landlords of the premises in dispute. By the orders under challenge the application of the landlords 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, ordering ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question upon payment of Rs. 2,400 as compensation to the petitioner by the landlords. The parties have exchanged their affidavits. Therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage with consent of the parties. The application under Clause (a) of sub -section (1) of Section 21 of the act was moved for release of the accommodation in the tenancy of the petitioner on the grounds, inter alia, that the same was required for establishing Prakash Chandra, 4th Respondent in the business of general merchandise as he had given up studies and was without any employment. Further, except for rental income from the shop in question the landlords have no other source of income. The rental income was not sufficient for making both ends meet and, therefore, it was decided to go in for the business aforesaid for which, the shop in question was required. It was also asserted that the tenant -petitioner had another shop and was a man of affluence who could well afford a shop elsewhere. Thus, no hardship would be caused to him if he was required to vacate the disputed premises.

(2.) INITIALLY , the release application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the finding that no case for bona fide need was established by the landlords. On appeal by the contesting respondents/landlords that finding was reversed. For consideration of a further question of comparative hardship the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for decision. In due course, the appellate order became final as the same was not challenged any further by the tenant -petitioner.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, there are no merits in this petition.