GANESHI LAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The present petition has been filed by the tenant. An application under section 21 (1) (a) was moved by the landlord-respondent against the petitioner. The application was rejected by both the authorities.

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority aswell as the appellate authority rejected the application of the landlord-respondent. A writ petition was filed by the landlord which was heard by another Single Judge of this Court, that judgment is Annexure '3' to the writ petition. From the judgment it appears that the case was remanded on the basis of an offer of alternative accommodation to the tenant. THE learned Judge held that if the offer of the petitioner was found to be genuine and reasonable, the tenant could be said to have an available and suitable alternative accommodation. After the remand the appellate authority found that there was an offer for another accommodation by the landlord. THE appellate authority passed the order in these terms :

(3.) THE other argument of the learned counsel was that he was entitled to compensation as he was being evicted from a business accommodation. He argued on the basis of Annexure '4' to the writ petition that the shop that was being offered to him as an alternative was far away from the road whereas the present shop was just on the road. It is true that the defendant might have some dis-advantages but as there were several shops adjoining the shop offered and in business locality, every shop cannot be on the road, the offer cannot be said to be unreasonable. THE petitioner may have some loss in shifting the business from the road. He may be compensated by two years' rent.