MADAN LAL Vs. IST A D J MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -tenant challenging the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent -landlord against the order passed by the prescribed authority and released the disputed shop in favour of the respondent -landlord.

(2.) THE petitioner is the tenant of the disputed shop and contesting respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act for release of the disputed shop on the ground that the applicant is carrying on business of cloth merchant in the partnership of his father and now he wants to set up his business independently, therefore, he needs the disputed shop for the purpose and further that the tenant is having three shops in the same market and the disputed shop is in fact vacant and no business is being carried out from the disputed shop.

(3.) THE prescribed authority after considering the respective case of the parties arrived at the conclusion that from the set of facts the landlord has not been able to make out a case the disputed shop is bona fide required by him, therefore, rejected the release application without going into further question as to who will be facing greater hardship. Aggrieved thereby the respondent -landlord filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority arrived at the conclusion that the view taken by the prescribed authority that since the father is of 70 years old, therefore, the need cannot be said to be bona fide is wholly perverse and deserves to be set aside. The appellate authority has held that merely because the father is of 70 years old, this alone cannot and should not be a ground for rejecting the application holding that the need is not bona fide particularly when it is not disputed that the father and son have separated and the son definitely requires a shop and there is no other shop available except the shop in question. On the question of comparative hardship, the appellate authority found that the need of the landlord is more pressing than that of the tenant. Thus, the appellate authority allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the prescribed authority and directed for release of the shop in favour of the landlord.