MOHD YASIN Vs. DISRICT JUDGE ETAWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by Sone Lal, landlord- respondent No. 3 since deceased and survived by legal representatives including Rajendra Kumar Verma (or Raj Kumar) son of deceased Sone Lal on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Property in dispute is a shop admeasuring 4'6" x 8'8". Late Sri Sone Lal purchased the shop in dispute on 26-9-1979. Petitioner Mohd. Yaseen since deceased and survived by legal representatives was tenant of the shop in dispute since before its purchase by Sone Lal. Rate of rent is Rs. 75/- per month. In the release application it was stated that in the shop in dispute landlord would do business of goldsmith and his son Rajendra Kumar will do the business of watch repairing. The release application was registered as P. A. Case No. 13 of 1986 on the file of prescribed authority. Etawah. Prescribed authority by judgment and order dated 22-8-1986 allowed the release application. Against the said order tenant- petitioner filed R. C. Appeal No. 13 of 1986. District Judge, Etawah through judgment and order dated 23-9-1986 dismissed the appeal, hence this writ petition by tenant. During pendency of the writ petition both the parties i. e. original tenant- petitioner and original landlord respondent No. 3 died and were substituted by legal representatives. In the release application the need for Rajendra Kumar son of the original landlord was also set up and now Rajendra Kumar has also been substituted as one of the legal representatives of original landlord Sone Lal, respondent No. 3 hence death of Sone Lal will not make any difference.

(2.) BOTH the Courts below after taking into consideration entire material on record held the need of landlord to be bona fide. They has also decided the question of comparative hardship in favour of the landlord and against the tenant.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that release should not have been allowed as petitioner was tenant for a long time as provided under Rule 16 (2) (a) of the Rules framed under the Act. Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of Sushila has held that the said rule is only one of the factors to be taken into consideration and that if the need set up is for unemployed person then long period of occupation of tenant is not a bar to allow the release application.