RADHA GOVIND Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Sri Gopal Chandra Mukherjee (landlord) respondent has filed application for release of the shop in question under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act ). This application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 25-9- 1993. The petitioner (tenant) filed an appeal. In this appeal he filed an application for taking additional evidence on record. This application was rejected on 12-2-1993. Thereafter the tenant's appeal was rejected on 1-1- 1994. Hence the present writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, Counsel for the tenant and Sri Maneesh Nigam, Counsel for the landlord. Sri Tandon submits that : The tenant had released part of inner portion of the shop which could be utilised by the landlord. The tenant wanted that this fact may be taken into account while deciding the appeal. The order dated 2-2-1993 rejecting the application to take this additional evidence is illegal and as such the order dated 1-1- 1994 dismissing the appeal is illegal.

(3.) THE appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the tenant also considered this alternative accommodation. This alternative accommodation was shown as letter 'i' and 'ii' in the map prepared by the Commissioner. THE Appellate Court has recorded following finding in this regard : "the alternative accommodation suggested by the learned Counsel for the appellant is show in by letters `i' and `ii' in the map (27 C/3), prepared by Sri V. K. Chaudhary Advocate Commissioner. THEse rooms had got no opening outside. Room No. `i' opens in the shop in dispute towards the west and Room No. `ii' in the east. Similarly Room No. `ii' opens in Room No. `i' and inner house without modification these rooms cannot be used as shop. " "the learned Counsel then contended that there is 74 feet wide Gali towards the north and these rooms can be utilised as shop by opening doors towards the Gali. In my opinion no one can be compelled to use residential portion as his shop. THE landlord must have been using these rooms for living purpose. It would not be proper to compel a man to use his room as shop causing inconvenience to his family members. It was held in G. P. Rastogiv. 8th Additional District Judge, 1990 (16) ALR 766, that the landlord cannot be expected to live, nor can be required to mould his needs according to the wishes of the tenant. "