RAJIV LOCHAN SHARMA Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE premises in dispute is House No. 3, Mohalla Khatikan, district Muzaffarnagar. The respondent No. 3 is the landlord of the same and is living in the ground floor and in a small portion on the first floor. The petitioner is tenant of three rooms and CHAJJA etc., on the first floor of the said house. The respondent No. 3 moved an application for release of the said portion in the possession of the petitioner, being P.A. Case No. 3/90, Annexure 1 to the petition. The application for release was partly allowed by the prescribed authority by judgment, dated 9.5.1994, Annexure 6 to the petition. He has held that the need of the respondent No. 3 will stand satisfied by the release of one room and the 'CHAJJA'. He has also considered the comparative hardship and the fact that the petitioner himself offered to vacate one room to satisfy the need of the landlord, respondent No. 3.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the impugned order of the prescribed authority both the parties preferred Appeals under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was appeal numbered as 27/94 and appeal preferred by respondent No. 3 was numbered as 34/94. Both the appeals were heard and decided by a common judgment, Annexure 7 to the petition on 17.4.1996. The appeal No. 34 of 1994 was dismissed but the appeal No. 27/94 preferred by respondent No. 3 was allowed and the entire portion was released by the appellate court. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IT is contended that the appellate court has not properly appreciated the facts. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the judgment of the appellate court in which it is mentioned that the prescribed authority has held the need of the entire house to be bona fide and one son Devendra Kumar of the landlord has been married during the pendency of the case. It has been argued that this observation of the appellate court is against the record. The perusal of the judgment passed by the prescribed authority show that he has held that the release of one room will satisfy the need of the respondent No. 3. It has been, therefore, contended that the approach of the appellate court is totally erroneous and it is a case where the appellate court had misread the judgment of the prescribed authority.