RAM PRAKASH Vs. SHYAM NARAIN GUPTA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner, who is the tenant of a shop situate on the ground floor of Raj Kamal Hotel, Aminabad, Lucknow, the landlords being respondent Nos. 1 to 12, has moved for an order of certiorari to bring up and quash an order of the Prescribed Authority, Lucknow (Annexure 1) dated 16th June, 1973. directing his eviction from the building, under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (to be hereinafter referred as the Act) which order was affirmed in appeal under Sec. 22 of the Act by the District Judge, Lucknow, in Annexure 2 dated 22nd Jan., 1974. Upon an application made by the petitioner for time to vacate the premises, the District Judge allowed a period of one month for the vacation of the same.

(2.) The admitted and stipulated facts are these : The petitioner is a displaced person from Pakistan and since 17th Aug., 1964, he has been in the occupation of the accommodation as the tenant, paying rent at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per mensem; he has been carrying on business of general merchandise and Kirana in the said shop. He owns a residential house in Nazarbagh, Lucknow, in which he lives and the ground floor of which has been let out to various tenants. The respondents, who are the members of the Hindu undivided family, carry on business of Jewellers under the name Badri Narain Laxmi Narain Jewellers and also run a hotel under the name, Raj Kamal Hotel, which building is owned by them. On 8th Oct., 1972, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and in particular Raj Narain Gupta (to be hereinafter referred as respondent No. 2) made an application under Sec. 21 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from the shop which is situate on the ground floor of the Raj Kamal Hotel, on the ground that respondent No. 2 required the said shop for starting the business of Chemists and Druggist. In reply to that application the petitioner questioned the existence of the bonafide need of respondent No. 2 or of the family, he refuted the allegation that alternative accommodation could be available to him in the market closeby. Amongst other pleas taken by him, one of the pleas was that there were a number of rooms on the ground floor of Raj Kamal Hotel which were vacant for the business of the respondents. The assertion made by the respondents that the petitioners son carried on joint family business in another shop in Chaddha Market, Aminabad, was controverted by saying that the petitioners son carried on separate business in the Chaddha Market, and which belonged exclusively to him.

(3.) The Prescribed Authority arrived at the finding that the residential building owned by the petitioner has no suitable accommodation for purposes of carrying on the business and that the petitioner had acquired business goodwill, as he had been carrying on business there for the last nine or ten years. As regards the availability or alternative accommodation for the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority left it for the petitioner himself to find it out, although at the same time it was said that the obtaining of an alternative accommodation was fraught with considerable difficulty. But taking into consideration the circumstance that respondent No. 2 in order to supplement his income, was in need of an accommodation where he could start a separate business and because the Nagar Mahapalika had not given him the licence to start such business without his having obtained the suitable accommodation, the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the building is bona fide required by respondent No. 2 for the purpose of carrying on trade. He, therefore, allowed the application. Feeling aggrieved from the order the tenant went up in appeal to the District Judge who, taking the view that since the need of the landlord was bonafide and was not vitiated by any oblique motive intended to harass the tenant or to extract more rent or otherwise, to let it out to some other tenant, confirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority, without taking into consideration the likely hardship which may be caused to the tenant from the grant of the application and other factors which he was required to consider under sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act. On the request of the petitioner, he granted him two months time on 22nd Jan., 1974, to vacate the accommodation, but when an objection was preferred by the landlords, the period was reduced to one month by an order dated 13th Feb., 1974.