BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. BASANTI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anuj Agarwal, holding brief of Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondents though service has already been deemed sufficient.

(2.) The dispute relates to a shop. Petitioner-landlord filed application under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") stating that he needs shop in question for running his own business, since he was selling some food items etc. on a Thela which is causing lot of problems on account of no fixed and specified place and problems created by administration. The Prescribed Authority dismissed petitioner-landlord's application by judgment dated 8.8.1995. In the appeal filed by petitioner-landlord, Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Prescribed Authority, so far as bona fide need is concerned, and held that need of petitioner-landlord is not genuine and bona fide.

(3.) On the question of comparative hardship, however, it refers to Rule 16 (2) (a) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1972") and says that tenant is doing business in shop in dispute since 1983, and, hence, he is an old tenant while landlord is already doing his business, may be on a Thela, yet he would not suffer that much inconvenience as the tenant, who has no other premises to continue his business.