LUMBA AUTO TRADERS Vs. VIJAY KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The brief facts of the case are that an application under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the Respondent-landlord before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kanpur Nagar. The suit was allowed in favour of the landlord holding that he had proved his bonafide need and comparative hardship. Aggrieved by the said order dated 8.4.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority confirming the judgment and order dated 8.4.2009 by its order dated 10.12.2010.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below neither have perused the evidence on record nor appreciated the grounds taken by the petitioner as such finding of the trial court allowing the suit and dismissing appeal of the petitioner is illegal. He has argued that the courts below has not considered the fact that the landlord has given first floor of the building on rent to Ram Kumar without any allotment and part of the building has been given on rent to Inland Transport Company. It has also been stated by the petitioner that shop was under the tenancy of Daljeet Kumar Bhatiya in which a lock was put by the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority has held that the tenant has neither filed any document nor led any evidence in support of his above contention and that the aforesaid averments of the tenant have been disputed by the landlord interalia that he has not given any portion of the building without any allotment to Ram Kumar or any other person or has put his lock in any shop of Daljeet Kumar Bhatiya.

(3.) The appellate court while confirming the order of the trial court has recorded a categorical finding of fact that petitioner has alternative accommodation in his possession in the same city and, therefore, hardship suffered by the landlord is greater and need of the landlord is bonafide.