JAGDISH PRASAD BARNWAL Vs. GOPAL PRASAD MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.N. Sinha for the petitioner and Sri S. Verma for the respondent. The petition relates to a godown situated in two storey building No. CK 63/202-203, Chotti Pyari, Varanasi owned by Gopal Prasad Misra, respondent (hereinafter referred to as "respondent landlord"). It was let out to petitioner's father long back by erstwhile owner Smt. Ram Devi prior to enforcement of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1972"). The petitioner inherited tenancy rights after death of his father and the respondent landlord became owner of the premises in dispute pursuant to a gift deed executed by Smt. Ram Devi sometime in the year 1980. The respondent landlord filed an application dated 24.3.1993 before the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of Act 1972 for release of the building in dispute from petitioner's tenancy on the ground of personal need. The application was registered as P.A. Case No. 13 of 1993 and was contested by the petitioner tenant by filing his written statement dated 26.3.1994. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application by order dated 20.4.1996 holding that the respondent landlord already held appropriate commercial accommodation to start his business and, therefore, neither his need is genuine nor issue of comparative hardship lies in his favour.

(2.) The matter was taken in appeal by respondent landlord i.e., Rent Appeal No. 54 of 1996 which has been decided by the appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 21.3.2003, allowing the appeal and having set aside the judgment and order of trial Court dated 26.3.1994, it has released the accommodation in question in favour of respondent landlord directing the petitioner tenant to hand over its vacant possession to respondent landlord.

(3.) Sri A.N. Sinha appearing for the petitioner tenant contended that appellate Court has misdirected itself and committed manifest error of law by not considering certain relevant aspects of the matter though the same were raised before it and have also been noticed in the appellate judgment. He drew my attention to the fact that during the course of proceedings before trial Court, one shop of respondent landlord fell vacant but instead of taking that shop for establishing business, the landlord allowed the said shop to be allotted on rent to one Mohd. Irshad and what impact it would have on the present proceedings. It was argued before the appellate Court that this aspect has to be examined as to when the shop was vacated, in what circumstances it was vacated and when and how it was let out to Sri Mohd. Irshad. In order to judge genuity and bona fide need of landlord the learned appellate Court expressed its view that this aspect shall be considered later on but thereafter in the entire appellate order this aspect has completely been ignored.