NARENDRA KUMAR MISRA Vs. BUDDHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner-landlord filed release application under section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") in respect of accommodation in question, which is in possession of respondent-tenant, comprising of two rooms at the ground floor in House No. 83A/101, Juhi, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner is a retired senior officer from Indian Air Force, who had retired from service in 1993. When he was in active service, house in question, comprising of two rooms at the ground floor, was let out to respondent-tenant but after retirement, he claimed that now entire accommodation is needed by him for his personal need and therefore, filed release application No. 37 of 1999, which was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 11.8.2005 but there against respondent-tenant preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 78 of 2005, which has been allowed by Lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.3.2008, hence this writ petition.

(2.) It is contended that findings recorded by Lower Appellate Court are self contradictory and perverse, therefore, impugned appellate judgment is liable to be set aside. The attention is drawn to page 75 of paper book. It is not in dispute that besides accommodation let out to respondent-tenant, there are two rooms more at ground floor, which are in possession of petitioner-landlord. One room is being used as store room and another one as a garage. On the first floor, there are two rooms, kitchen, latrine and on the second floor, there are four rooms out of which, roof of one room is seriously damaged and there remains only three rooms, which can be used and the same are being used as store room. The Lower Appellate Court also admitted that considering requirement of petitioner-landlord for himself, his two sons and a married daughter, he would require at least six rooms and besides, since he is enrolled as an Advocate, one room he will be required for setting up Advocate's chamber. It has further stated that so far as ground floor is concerned, two rooms are being used as store and garage and they can be excluded, still two rooms on first floor and three rooms on second floor are available with the landlord. But having said so, he has considered total availability of rooms with landlord as seven and says that his requirement being only six rooms, he has one spare room. This finding is patently perverse, inasmuch as, as per his own finding recorded by Lower Appellate Court, only five rooms at first and second floor are available with the landlord, and rooms at ground floor are already excluded by Lower Appellate Court being used as garage and store. This is evident from the following;

(3.) It is thus clear that only five rooms were actually available to the landlord though he needed seven rooms as per own findings of Lower Appellate Court and that being so, it cannot be said that need of landlord in respect of accommodation in question was not bona fide. Similarly, in the context of comparative hardship also, looking to this aspect of the matter that landlord's need was found genuine, the tenant having not made any effort to find out alternative accommodation, comparative hardship also lies in favour of landlord. This has already held by Prescribed Authority but has illegally been reversed by Lower Appellate Court based on perverse finding that landlord had 7 rooms available for utilization by his family for residential purpose though there were only 5 rooms after excluding two rooms on ground floor, which were allowed to be used as garage and store.