SHITAL PRASAD JAIN Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.2.1995 passed by appellate authority in Rent Appeal No. 58 of 1988. whereby the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 17.10.1988 passed by Prescribed Authority.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of present wril pelition are that petitioner Shital Prasad. who is admittedly a tenant of the accommodation in dispute, which is a non-residential accommodation, is carrying on business of Hotel, The landlord-respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U, P. Act No. 13 of 1972. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for release of the accommodation in his favour to set up his son in the hotel business as the accommodation in dispute is most suitable for running the hotel business. The petitioner-tenant repelled the allegations made by the landlord and contended before the Prescribed Authority that the need set up by the landlord is neither bona fide, nor pressing. However, it has not been disputed that the son of the landlord requires of an establishment in a business. The Prescribed Authority after considering the pleadings and evidence on record has arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide and that the till of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord. The Prescribed Authority also found that in the adjoining building of Brijnandan Saran, petitioner Shital Prasad is running his hotel business along with his brother. The Prescribed Authority thus allowed the application filed by the landlord.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby. the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority, after going through the records and after hearing the arguments of both sides, has affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority with regard to the bona fide requirement as well as the comparative hardship and thereafter dismissed the appeal by the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 9.2.1995 and thus, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the aforesaid order. The first argument advanced by Sri Saurabh Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that a perusal of Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act will demonstrate that it is incumbent on the part of the Prescribed Authority as well as appellate authority as to whether the release of the part of the accommodation of the tenancy would suffice the requirement of the landlord as set up in the application under Section 21 (1) fa) of the Act. Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent contended that this argument was not advanced either before the Prescribed Authority, or before the appellate authority. Sri Dayal in support of his contention relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Smf. Raj Rani Mehrotra v. IInd Additional District Judge and Ors., 1980 ARC 311, wherein the Apex Court has held that "the issue arising under Rule 16 (1) (d) of the rules framed under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, as to whether the landlord's need could have been satisfied by releasing only a part of the premises has not been gone into or considered by any of them. When the plea under the said rule was pressed on behalf of the tenant in the High Court. The High Court rejected it on the sole ground that no such plea has been raised by the tenant in his written statement and as such, it could not be considered. It is clear that under the relevant rule, it is a duty of the Court to take into account that aspect while considering the requirements of personal occupation of the landlord and. therefore, this issue will have to be remanded to the High Court." The other decisions relied upon by Sri Dayal are Firm ShanJcar Das Durga Prasad v. IVth Additional District Judge, Meerut and Ors., 1981 ARC 229 : Siya Ram v. Manik Chandra and Ors., 1981 ARC 232 : Jivram Ranchhoddas Thakkar and Anr. v. Tulshiram Ratanchand Manlri and Ors.. In the decision of Smt. Raj Rani Mehrotra of the Apex Court arising out of an application under Rule 16 (1) (d) of the Rules as would be clear from the judgment. whereas the present application is governed by the provisions of Rule 16 (2) of the Rules. Rule 16 (1) and (2) is reproduced below :