AJITENDRA VIJAY JAIN Vs. PRABHAT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by an order passed by the Appellate Authority in the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as 'Act' whereunder while upholding the finding of the Prescribed Authority that the requirement for the release of accommodation in dispute was bonafide and genuine, the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority has been reversed upsetting the finding recorded by it on the question of relative hardship envisaged under the IV Proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act after holding that the tenant respondent will suffer more hardship, if he is evicted and there was less justification for the grant of the release application, the landlord petitioner has now approached this Court for redress seeking restoration of the order granting release passed by the Prescribed Authority.

(2.) THE facts as brought on record indicate that the premises in dispute which was under the tenancy of Baburam Jain the predecessor in interest of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 8 was being utilised for running a business in the name and style of 'M/s Baburam Jain and Sons' which was a partnership concern constituted on 1.4.1984 with Babu Ram Jain died on 23.1.1985 and after his death under a deed of dissolution dated 23rd February, 1985, the partnership constituted on 1.4.1984 in the name and style of M/s. Baburam Jain and Sons was dissolved w.e.f. 23.1.1985. The deed of dissolution which is on record indicates that the assets and liabilities as per the balance sheet had been allotted and assigned to Prabhat Kumar Jain and the stocks and books as per the balance sheet has been assigned and allotted to Arun Kumar Jain, who had relinquished all his rights and interest in partnership properties in favour of the Prabhat Kumar Jain in consideration whereof Prabhat Kumar Jain had undertaken to pay and paid to Arun Kumar Jain his share in the capital outstanding in the name of Baburam Jain in the partnership business.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority accepted the claim of the landlord and held that the requirement set up, seeking release of the accommodation in dispute was genuine and bonafide. In also recorded a finding that the respondent-tenant had not been utilising the accommodation in dispute mainly for business purposes and was doing business in several other shops. The Prescribed Authority also recorded a finding that a view of the vast business being done by the contesting tenant at various other places, he was not likely to suffer at all if he is displaced from the shop in question. The Prescribed Authority also took note of the fact that the contesting respondent had not taken any action whatsoever to acquire any other shop for shifting the business which is allegedly carried in premises in dispute. It also held that there was no evidence on the record that the properties left by Baburam Jain had been partitioned amongst his heirs. In this view of the matter, the Prescribed Authority found that the other accommodation which were being utilised for business purpose standing in the name of the mother of Prabhat Kumar Jain in which the tenant had a share will be deemed to be available to the tenant which could be utilised suitably for carrying on the business which is at present being run in the ship in dispute. The Prescribed Authority also held that premises No. 868, 869 and 881/8 as well as premises 57, Dariba Mainpuri were such wherein the tenant could shift without any appreciable effect on the business being carried on in the premises in question. Taking all these factors into consideration the Prescribed Authority concluded that the hardship likely to be suffered by the tenant in the event of the grant of the release would be far less as compared to the hardship likely to be suffered by the landlord in the event of rejection of the application for release. Consequently the Prescribed Authority had granted release as prayed for.