RAM AUTAR AGRAWAL Vs. A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landlord challenges the orders dated 25th April, 1989, passed by the prescribed authority and 14th February, 1990, passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed by the appellate authority.

(2.) The brief facts, leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner is admittedly the landlord and the contesting respondent is the tenant of the shop in question. The petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for release of the shop in dispute in his favour on the ground that his son Sandeep Kumar, who could not study beyond High School and failed in Intermediate, has to be settled in the sweetmeat business, which will be opened after the shops is released in favour of the landlord. In the application it is further stated that there is no other accommodation except the shop in dispute, which is suitable for the proposed business, as the shop in question is 20' x 20' and is close to the residential house of the landlord. In case the shop is released in favour of the landlord, the contesting respondent-tenant would not suffer any hardship as sufficient shops are available in two business complexes, which have been recently constructed and are situated within a distance of one furlong or less. The contesting respondent-tenant is the wife of Dr. R. P. Agarwal, who is in fact carrying on his clinic from the shop in dispute. The tenant denied the aforesaid relationship of the landlord and submitted that her husband Dr. R. P. Agarwal is carrying on his clinic from the shop in question, which was established sometime in the year 1970. Dr. R. P. Agarwal has also set up X-ray machine and thus the tenant's husband, who is carrying on his business and clinic, including the X-ray machine, has earned a goodwill and reputation and if she is forced to vacate the shop in question, firstly there is no suitable shop available in the vicinity as suggested by the landlord and secondly it will affect the established medical practice of the husband of the tenant. The parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective case. It is suggested that had the need of the landlord been bona fide, the landlord would not have let out the shop, which came in the share of the landlord when there was a family partition amongst the brothers of the landlord in the year 1976 and in fact after the aforesaid partition one of the shop has been let out by the landlord to one Awadhesh Kumar. This clearly demonstrates that the application has been filed only as a device for enhancement of the rent, which in fact has been increased from Rs. 250 per month to Rs. 350 per month, but this alone has not satisfied the landlord. The landlord denied the aforesaid allegations levelled against him by the tenant. The prescribed authority after considering the respective case and evidence on record have rejected the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act vide its order dated 25th April, 1989. The order of the prescribed authority runs about 22 type pages.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-landlord filed an appeal before the appellate authority under the provisions of the Act. Before the appellate authority, the same arguments were advanced by the tenant that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and on comparison of the hardship of the landlord as well as the tenant, the tenant will face more difficulty than that of the landlord. The appellate authority vide its order dated 14th February, 1990 affirmed the order passed by the prescribed authority and dismissed the appeal preferred by the landlord, thus this writ petition.