KISHAN NARAIN AGARWAL Vs. VIIITH ADJ BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant- respondent No. 3 Chottey Lal on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P. A. Case No. 15 of 1990. The property in dispute is a shop. In the release application it was stated that landlord had retired from Bank service on 30-11-1988, that he had one son and six daughters out of whom three daughters had been married and three were still to be married Landlord pleaded that he intended to start business from the shop in dispute in order to augment his income. The dimension of the shop in dispute is 10 feet x 16 feet. Prescribed authority, Bareilly found the need of the landlord to be bona fide and released half of the shop through judgment and order dated 23-4-1992. Against the said judgment and order both the parties filed appeals. Landlord's appeal was registered as R. C. Appeal No. 19 of 1992 and that of the tenant as R. C. Appeal No. 30 of 1992. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard together by VIIIth A. D. J. , Bareilly. The Appellate Court after reassessment of evidence fully approved the bona fide need of the landlord. Appellate Court also recorded that the dimensions of the shops were such that it could not be bifurcated. Appellate Court also recorded the finding that both the parties agreed that if the shop was divided into two portions, none of the portions would be suitable for business. However, Appellate Court only and only on the ground of comparative hardship decided both the appeals in favour of the tenant. Landlord's appeal was dismissed and tenant's appeal was allowed. The Appellate Court decided both the appeals through judgment and order dated 20-9-1994. The affect of the Appellate Court's judgments is that release application of landlord stands dismissed completely. Appellate Court found that tenant had two other shops available to him one of which was as big as the shop in dispute. However, Appellate Court held that tenant had four sons and only some of them were engaged in business hence he had to settle his other sons in business.

(2.) IN my opinion the view taken by the Appellate Court is utterly erroneous in law. First of all tenant is already in possession of two other shops. This fact by itself is sufficient to decide the question of comparative hardship against the tenant. It is too much to ask the landlord to wait for vacation of his shop even if his need is bona fide till all the sons of the tenant are completely settled in separate business. Even otherwise tenant did not show that what efforts he made to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. IN view of the Supreme Court authority in B. C. Bhutada v. G. R. Munadada, AIR 2003 SC 2713, this by itself was sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship against the tenant. The Supreme Court in Siddalingama v. M. Shenoy, 2002 (46) ALR 18 (SC), has held that entire Rent Control Act is basically meant for the benefit of the tenant and provision of release on the ground of bona fide need is the only provision which treats the landlords with some sympathy.