BHUDEO GUPTA Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders passed by the prescribed authority and appellate authority under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act').

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under: That the petitioner who is admittedly the tenant of the shop in dispute contested the application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act whereby the respondent-landlord prays for the release of the shop in dispute for his bona fide personal requirement with the allegation that the landlord is a practising advocate and he does not have any place where he could consult his clients therefore, the shop in dispute which is most suitable place for establishing the chamber, may be released in his favour. The landlord further submitted that in fact the petitioner tenant does not require the shop in dispute inasmuch as he has already purchased the shop where he can start his business of medicine. This application filed by the landlord was contested by the petitioner on the ground firstly that the landlord is still a junior to some senior advocate and in fact does not require any place for establishing his chamber. Secondly the landlord is in possession of the open land where he can construct chamber. The prescribed authority after considering the material available on record has recorded a finding that the need of the landlord is bona fide and that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord. It was also found by the prescribed authority that the tenant is not carrying on any business from the disputed shop but in fact, he has sub-let the shop in favour of one Santosh Kumar Verma. After the matter was decided by the prescribed authority the tenant has set up the case that his son has passed B.D.S. Examination, the shop in dispute is required by his son for establishing a dental clinic. The prescribed authority found that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord therefore, allowed the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby the tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after considering the evidence and material available on record has found that the findings recorded by the prescribed authority on the question of bona fide need and also on the tilt of the comparative hardship do not warrant interference and therefore, affirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority. The appellate authority further found that since after filing of the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act the tenant has not made any effort to find out any alternative accommodation is indicative of the fact that the tenant in fact does not require the shop in dispute and the plea taken by the landlord that the tenant has sub-let the shop to one Santosh Kumar Verma, is correct. Thus, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority.

(3.) Before this Court learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant argued that since the petitioner has filed two applications during the pendency of the appeal which has been dismissed by the appellate authority and aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 11556 of 2004 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.3.2004 holding as under : Without expressing any opinion regarding merit of the impugned orders this writ petition is dismissed at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said orders also in case appeal is finally decided against him and he files writ petition against the final judgment and order of appellate court.