BHUPENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. IST A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landlord challenges order dated 13th October, 1987, passed by the appellate authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition, whereby the appeal filed by the tenant-contesting respondent under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, against the order passed by the prescribed authority was allowed.

(2.) In short, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, in short the 'Act', for the release of the aforesaid accommodation in question in favour of the landlord as the landlord requires bona fide the same for his personal requirement, as asserted by him in his application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The case set up by the landlord is that the accommodation in question is situated on the first floor of the building, whereby the family of the landlord is residing and the family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife, his two married sons, their wives, two sons of the elder son of the petitioner and also a daughter of his elder son. Besides this, it was also asserted that the house in which the petitioner-landlord was also living was extremely insufficient for the growing family and that there has been consistent quarrel of the wife of the petitioner and the wife of his elder son on account of the fact that the elder son of the petitioner is from the first wedlock. It is further asserted by the petitioner-landlord that during the pendency of the aforesaid application on the quarrel between the stepmother and the son has gone to such an extent that due to such anxiety the landlord got heart attack. These facts were brought by the landlord on record during the pendency of the application before the prescribed authority with the relevant documentary evidence regarding petitioners' having suffered with heart attack. It has further been alleged by the landlord in his application that there is a huge building in occupation of the tenant near the station behind the Octroi Post, which the tenant can use as the office for the alleged purposes for which the tenant is using the accommodation in question. The landlord further stated that the Union (tenant) is not using the premises, as they have already a bigger and spacious accommodation and in fact the accommodation in question is being used by the truck drivers and other employees of the truck operators for illegal purposes and copy of F.I.R. was also placed before the prescribed authority, which says that the same was lodged when it was found that the premises was used by some unauthorised persons for illegal purposes. On the aforesaid ground the landlord sought release of the accommodation in question in his favour for his bona fide requirement, as stated in the application. On the question of comparative hardship, it is stated that in fact Union is not carrying on any activity from the accommodation in question, as they have already got another spacious accommodation, as stated above, from where they are carrying on their activity of the Union. The accommodation in dispute, as stated above, is being used by the truck drivers etc. and the tenant will have no hardship, what to say. too more hardship than the landlord that the accommodation in question is released in favour of the landlord.

(3.) The prescribed authority vide its order dated 21st February, 1987, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, allowed the application filed by the landlord-petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant-contesting respondent preferred an appeal, as stated above, before the appellate authority as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act. Before the appellate authority, the landlord-petitioner contended that the view taken by the prescribed authority that the accommodation in question is bona fide required is based on an alleged letter said to have been written by the elder son of the petitioner-landlord, whereby he has demanded the enhancement of the rent of the accommodation in question, otherwise it is threatened that the accommodation in question will be got vacated. The appellate authority has considered the aforesaid letter and also the affidavit filed by the landlords son and arrived at the finding that the view taken by the prescribed authority regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord deserves to be reversed and reversed the same and held that the accommodation in question Is not required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose which is mentioned in his release application. On the question of comparative hardship the appellate authority has categorically held that in fact no activity is being carried out from the accommodation in question, as the Union has already got in possession a spacious accommodation in front of the Octroi Post. The appellate authority held that the landlord has to establish his bona fide need and once the bona fide need is made out, the comparative hardship has to be seen. Since the bona fide need has not been proved, the landlord cannot get the accommodation released. The appellate authority arrived at the conclusion that "Thus in view of above discussion, I hold that there was no bona fide and genuine need of the applicant to get the accommodation released and therefore there was no further need of comparing the hardships."