SRI RAM Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash judgment and order dated 19.10.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Court No.1), Hardoi in Rent Appeal No.07 of 2006 and the judgment and order dated 25.11.2006 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.R.) Hardoi in Prescribed Authority case no.6 of 2001, contained in Annexure Nos.1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition. Brief facts, relevant for the purposes of deciding this writ petition, are that the petitioner is admittedly tenant at the rate of Rs.200/- per month as rent in the shop in question at Cinema Road, Hardoi, of which the opposite party nos.3 and 4 are the landlords. The landlords moved application for release under Section 21 (1) (A) of U.P. Act No.14 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for release on the ground that the applicant no.1 is the father and the applicant no.2 is the son who has completed his education and is unemployed and is of the age of 24 years; that he is going to be married soon; that the applicant no.1 is carrying on his shop and the applicant no.2 wants to establish his independent shop of general merchandise; that the applicants have got sufficient amount to establish the said business and he has got the statement prepared; that in the same vicinity shops in the vacant state are available but the tenant / petitioner did not pay any heed. Hence, notice dated 13.2.2001 was sent but the tenant did neither reply to the notice nor vacate the shop in question. Hence, application was moved.

(2.) IN the written statement, petitioner pleaded that the applicant no.2 has unnecessarily been impleaded as party; that the landlords have filed Small Cause Case No.9 of 1989, which was decided in terms of compromise on 22.09.1999, in which the rent of the shop in question was raised from Rs.65/- per month to Rs.200/- per month; that the landlords are already carrying on the business of cloth merchant and are agriculturists too; that the landlords have a house in Mohalla Aliganj, District Lucknow, in a portion of which there is a Bank on lease and the remaining portion is vacant, where the landlords can open a shop; that the landlords are not in bonafide need of the disputed accommodation; that the shop in question is the only livelihood of the petitioner and he has in his family three major sons, two daughter in laws and one grand son, in addition to his wife; that the tenant shall suffer hardship in case of vacation of the shop in question as it is the only source of income of his family, where he is carrying on the business of tailoring for the last 37 years. The learned Prescribed Authority proceeded with the case. Both the parties have lead evidence and after completion of hearing the release application was allowed. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which has also been dismissed on merits. Hence, the petitioner preferred this writ petition.

(3.) AS far as the question of availability of the alternative accommodation, the petitioner has failed to establish any serious attempts made by him, as is evident from the judgments of two courts below. The shops are available in the city of Hardoi. The petitioner could have got alternative accommodation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddalingama v. M. Shenoy AIR 2001 S.C. 2896 has held that Rent Control Act is basically meant for the benefit of tenant and provision of release on the ground of bonafide need is the only provision which treats the landlord with some sympathy.