SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the tenant against release order passed by Prescribed Authority in favour of landlord/respondent under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and against judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal of the tenant under section 22 of the Act. Joint application was filed against four tenants/petitioners. The case of the landlord was that he was carrying on business of Rice Mills towards north of the four shops in dispute and his place of work was mainly covered by tin shed. He further stated that the condition of building in his possession as well as of the shops in dispute was dilapidated and he proposed to make new construction after demolishing the building in his possession and shops in dispute and use the same for his business in order to carry the same on bigger, more profitable basis. A proposed map of construction was filed before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Court after taking into consideration the material on record held that need of landlord was bona fide. The findings of comparative hardship were also recorded in favour of landlord by both the Courts below. The first point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the release application was filed under both the sub -clauses of section 21(1) i.e. Clause (a) and Clause (b). Hence the Courts below should have been decided the case under Clause (b) meaning thereby that tenant should have been given an option of taking on rent reconstructed shops. Sometimes learned advocates while drafting the release application do not keep in mind fine distinction between the two clauses. Release application filed under Clause (a) may be filed for two purposes. First is when landlord requires the building in its existing form. The other is requirement for reconstructed portion after demolition and reconstruction. For later requirement it is immaterial whether existing construction are in dilapidated condition or not.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon, 1983 ARC 464 and, 1982 ARC 542 wherein it has been held that the actual income of the landlord from the business which he was already carrying on and from the other assets should also be seen. The Supreme Court in recent authority reported in : 2001 (8) SCC 56; has held that provision of release on the ground of bona fide need is the only provision which treats the landlord with some sympathy otherwise rent control legislation is heavily loaded in favour of the tenant.

(3.) AS far as apprehension of the tenants that the release application was in fact only a device to evict them is concerned, the same may be allayed by providing safeguard. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. Tenant/petitioner is granted six months time to vacate. It is further directed that landlord must get the map which he filed before the Prescribed Authority passed by competent authority. In case within six months map is not passed, tenants will not be liable to vacate after six months until proposed map is passed/sanctioned. It is clarified that tenant will not raise any sort of objection with regard to the passing of the map and in case any such objection is raised, competent authority shall completely ignore the same. Landlord must reconstruct and start business as stated by him within six months of getting possession otherwise he would be liable to compensate the tenants by paying hundred years rent which according to liable to compensate the tenants by paying hundred years rent which according to learned counsel for parties comes to about Rs. 30,000/ -.