HOTI LAL Vs. ADESHWAR PRASAD JAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 to 7 are the landlords of a shop and the petitioner is its tenant. An application was made by respondents 1 to 7 for the release of the said shop in their favour on the ground that it was required for their bona fide need. The application was contested by the petitioner.

(2.) The Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 3 and on an appeal, the appellate authority, the IV Additional District Judge, respondent No. 9 have after hearing the parties, come to a concurrent conclusion that the need of the landlord-respondents was bona fide and greater than the need of the tenant-petitioner. Application for release was accordingly allowed by the impugned orders.

(3.) It has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner that so far as the need of respondent No. 4 Pramod Kumar Jain is concerned, it has been held in the impugned orders that his need was not bona fide. Consequently on the finding that the need of respondent No. 2 Kamal Kumar Jain was bona fide only a portion of the shop in dispute ought to have been released in favour of the landlord-respondents and not the whole of it. In this connection it may be pointed out that the petitioner is in occupation of a single shop. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is any partition wall in the shop so that one portion of the shop could be used by the petitioner and the other by the landlord respondents. User of a single shop by two members of the same family either of the landlord or of the tenant by making temporary arrangement is different from user of a portion of a single shop by the landlord and the other by the tenant. In this view of the matter it was not possible to release a portion of the shop which constitutes a single unit in favour of the landlord respondents without directing them to undertake fresh constructions or make structural changes of a substantial character in order to divide one shop into two in a manner that each was independent of the other. In Smt. Ram Kail Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, 1980 A.W.C. 108 , it has been held by this Court although in a slightly different context that a direction to make additional constructions etc. cannot be given while deciding an application under Sec. 21 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972. Neither in the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 nor in the Rules framed thereunder has any provision authorising the Prescribed Authority or the appellate authority to compel the landlord to make such construction or structural alteration been brought to my notice. If there is an accommodation comprising of severable portions in occupation of the tenant so that both the tenant and the landlord can be accommodated without requiring the landlord to make any substantial additions or alterations in the building a portion alone of such accommodation and not the entire accommodation can of course be released in favour of the landlord and the remaining portion allowed to continue in the tenant's occupation. This is obviously not the position in the instant case. The impugned orders cannot consequently be quashed on this ground.