HARI OM PRAKASH Vs. BRIJ MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the orders dated 25th January, 2001 and 2nd September, 2003, passed by courts below under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'the Act', copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-12 and 13, respectively to the writ petition.

(2.) From the averments of the facts, it is apparent that there is long drawn litigation between the parties with regard to an earlier application filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(b) of 'the Act'. The possession of the shop in dispute has been delivered to the tenant pursuant to the proceeding under Section 24 of 'the Act', which was consequent to the order passed by the prescribed authority under Section 21(1)(b) of 'the Act', holding that the building where the shop in dispute is situated, is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. Now the present application under Section 21(1)(a) of 'the Act' has been filed by the landlady for release of the shop in dispute on the ground of bona fide requirement. During the pendency of the proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of "the Act", the landlady died and as per her Will deed dated 25th April, 1997, the grandsons, namely, BriJ Mohan and Amit Kumar became the landlord. Brij Mohan filed an application along with an affidavit after the death of the landlady substituting his own need for the continuance of the proceeding under Section 21(1)W of 'the Act' with the assertion that BriJ Mohan requires shop in dispute for his bona fide requirement and that the petitioner-tenant (respondent in the proceedings) in fact doing no business from the shop in dispute. He is an old man and was doing business of retail sale of lock during the pendency of the litigation, the tenant also died and his tenancy right has been inherited by the widow and son (petitioner herein) and the daughter Smt. Poonam.

(3.) The prescribed authority after considering the respective case of the rival parties have found that Brij Mohan can continue the proceedings and also the requirement of Brij Mohan is bona fide and thus the need of the landlord is bona fide and on the question of comparative hardship, the prescribed authority found from the materials on record that it is apparent that the tilt of the comparative hardship is in favour landlord. Thus, the prescribed authority vide its order dated 25th January, 2001, allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of 'the Act' filed by the landlord.