CHHEDI RAM PANDEY Vs. MALTI BAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent - landlord.

(2.) This is a tenant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking superintending and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to question the findings of the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority on the score of release application being granted exercising power chiefly under Sec. 21(1)(a) and then at the same time under Sec. 21 (1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(3.) There is no dispute qua jural relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and the respondent, however, the plea is set up in defence by the tenant before the prescribed authority as well as before the appellate authority was that tenant had sufficient alternative accommodation in the form of a vacant space behind the shops in question being used as a godown and, therefore, neither the need was so pressing, nor bona fide one inasmuch as on the point of comparative hardships, the petitioner having no other source of livelihood except the business being run from the shop, it lilted more in favour of the tenant.