ABDUL SATTAR Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING 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 andiEviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') whereunder allowing the appeal, the application for release of the accommodation in dispute had been granted holding the tenant to be entitled to one year's rent as compensation, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned order.

(2.) THE facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. THE landlord respondents had filed an application seeking release of the accommodation in dispute initiating the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act in the year 1982. THE claim of the landlord was contested by the tenant petitioner on various grounds asserting that the alleged need set up by the landlord was not genuine and bonafideand that the tenant was likely to suffer greater hardship as compared to the landlord in the event of the grant of the application, In the objection and the counter affidavit filed by the tenant it had also been asserted that the petitioner was only a co-tenant of the premises in dispute alongwith his younger brother Sri Imamuddin and the status of both these persons was that of tenants-in-common a$ both of them had inherited the tenancy rights from Mohammad Hussain who was the last tenant and had died on 16-11-1976, THE plea which had been raised was that the landlord had failed to implead Imamuddin and his non-impleadment in the proceedings was fatal. It was asserted that the application for release was not maintainable as framed and was liable to be dismissed on account of the non-joinder of Imamuddin. THE landlord however, denied the claim of the petitioner and had asserted that Imamuddin was not at all a necessary party as he had never been a co-tenant. It is asserted that after the death of Mohammad Hussain, Abdul Sattar alone continued to .occupy the shop and run business therein and has been throughout the sole tenant of the premises in dispute. It was also asserted that Imamuddin was an employee in the Roadways and had never any concern with either the premises in dispute or the business being run therein by Abdul Sattar. THE landlord further asserted that the need for the accommodation in dispute was genuine and pressing and the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship as compared to the tenant in the event of the rejection of the application.

(3.) THE judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority, rejecting the application for release, in the circumstances indicated above, was challenged by the landlord in an appeal which was heard and disposed of by the appellate authority vide the impugned order. THE appellate authority endorsed and affirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority on the questions relating to the need for release being bonafide and genuine as well as on the question relating to the comparative hardships. THE appellate authority, further, after carefully considering the evidence and the materials on record, reversed the finding of the trial court on the question relating to the effect of the non-impleadment of Imamuddin after recording a clear cut finding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenancy rights of Imamuddin were to be deemed to have been surrendered. After recording a finding of implied surrender of tenancy rights which Imamuddin was alleged to possess, there was no difficulty for the appellate authority for reversing the order passed by the prescribed authority and consequently the release of the accommodation in dispute sought for by the landlord was granted as claimed.