KRISHNA DEV VERMA Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Orders dated 18.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 passed in this writ petition (on the order sheet) are quoted below:

(2.) This is landlord's writ petition arising out of proceedings for eviction/ release initiated by him against opposite parties No.3 & 4, Sami Mohd. and Badlu Nai on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Opposite parties No.3 & 4 were tenants of one shop each and both the shops were adjoining to each other. It is not disputed that opposite party No.4, Badlu Nai has vacated the shop which was in his occupation. The release application was registered as Case No.26 of 1984, Krishna Dev Verma Vs. Sami Mohd. and another and was allowed on 30.10.1984 by Prescribed Authority, Gonda. Against the said order, opposite party No.3, Sami Mohd. filed Misc. Rent Appeal No.18 of 1984, Sami Mohd. Vs. Badlu and others. VI A.D.J., Gonda allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 30.11.1996, set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application and dismissed the release application. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.

(3.) Landlord petitioner had contended that he was doctor by profession and since 1968 he was running clinic in the adjoining portion and was having X-ray machine and pathological lab and he was getting the patients from distant places uptil 20 kilometers and for different tests they had to stay for two or three days and for making arrangement for stay of such patients he was not having proper accommodation and he required the shop in dispute so that his patients coming from distant places could stay there. Lower appellate court held that the adjoining portion situate towards east of the shops in dispute having five rooms, verandah, latrine, bathroom etc. was in tenancy occupation of Sri S.C. Srivastava, which had been vacated by Sri srivastava and its possession had been handed over to the landlord on 14.07.1984 and on the first floor also eight or nine rooms had been got constructed by the landlord during pendency of the release proceedings, which were more than sufficient to satisfy the alleged need of the landlord. Commission was also issued, who reported that 10 new rooms had been constructed on the first floor. This report of the Commissioner was not specifically disputed by the landlord. In respect of the portion alleged to have been vacated by Sri Srivastava, the landlord asserted that the same was in possession of a friend of Sri Srivastava. The lower appellate court held that this allegation of the tenant that on 14.07.1984, Sri Srivastava had vacated the five rooms was not specifically denied and it was also not asserted by the landlord that in what capacity, the friend of Sri Srivastava was residing therein. Lower appellate court further held that even if the five rooms in tenancy occupation of Sri Srivastava were ignored it was proved, fairly admitted by the landlord that during pendency of release proceedings in question he had constructed ten new rooms. However, argument raised by the landlord was that he was at liberty to choose any accommodation for his need and tenant could not dictate that how else the landlord could satisfy his need. A less suitable accommodation cannot be a ground to reject the release application for more suitable accommodation but not vice versa. Supreme Court has held in Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali, 2010 AIR(SC) 2679 that the landlord is the best judge for satisfaction of his need but it cannot be used as only a pretext to evict the tenant.