WALI ULLAH Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BAHRAICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Bhinga Town, District Bahraich, opposite party No. 2 is the owner of Building known as Sarai Bhinga. In front of the said building there are 14 shops out to which, he has sold three shops to Jagan Nath, Deen Dayal and Onkar and the remaining shops are in possession of his tenants. Out of these remaining 11 shops, seven shops are in the tenancy of the petitioners who have been carrying on business for the last 24 of 25 years. Opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for the release of the shops in his favour as he wanted to construct a cinema hall after demolishing the shops. The petitioners filed objections against the application on the ground that the shops were in their possession for the last 25 years in which they were carrying on their business and the said business was the only source of their livelihood. It was alleged that opposite party No. 2 had no genuine need to construct a cinema hall. It was also alleged that the application for release has been made to put pressure on the petitioners within mala fide motives. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 27.10.1979 rejected the application filed by opposite party No. 2 on the ground that the need of opposite party No. 2 was not genuine. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority opposite party No. 2 filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The appeal was heard by opposite party No. 1 who allowed it by order dated 10.3.1981. A certified copy of the order has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. A perusal of Annexure 5 would indicate that in allowing the appeal, opposite party No. 1 was greatly influenced by the fact that after the abolition of Zamindari the income of opposite party No. 2 had diminished, the agricultural land held by him was declared surplus under the provisions of the Ceiling Act and in the circumstances opposite party No. 2 has to augment his income by starting some other business. In this back-ground, the Court below held that the need of opposite party No. 2 for constructing a cinema hall is genuine and if for the construction of a cinema hall the shops have to be demolished, the same may be demolished by the landlord so that he may be able to carry on the business of exhibiting picture in the cinema hall. Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 provides for the release of Accommodation in favour of the landlord. The said section in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of the controversy between the parties, is reproduced below :-

(2.) ANNEXURE 1 to the writ petition is the application of opposite party No. 2 under Section 21 of the Act. In paragraph 5 of the petition it has been stated that opposite party No. 2 bonafide needed demolition of the shops so that he may construct a cinema hall and carry on the business of exhibiting pictures. The petitioner also states that he had applied for permission to construct a cinema hall. Annexure 2 is the copy of the objections filed by the petitioners. In the objections it has been stated that the petitioners have been carrying on business for purposes for the last several years and that the need of opposite party No. 2 for eviction of the tenants for the construction of a cinema hall is not genuine.

(3.) THE Supreme Court further observed that if the need of the landlords was genuine and reasonable and the premises which belonged to them were required for augmenting their income as the income so far received by them was not sufficient for them, that would be a case of real requirement or genuine need. The Supreme Court was interpreting the word "reasonable requirement" appearing in Section 11(1)(h) of Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. The views expressed by the learned Judge interpreting the words 'reasonable requirement' in that case would apply to the case in hand as the provisions of Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are substantially the same as of Section 11(1)(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. The Supreme Court has emphasized that what is required to be established in such cases is that the accommodation is needed by the landlord for his own use and that the need is bonafide.