SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. IMRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. XIII of 1972 setting up a need for the shop in question for the third respondent, Parvej Alam, who upon obtaining a degree in law wants to practice law. The petitioner/tenant appeared and contested the release application by filing objection/written statement. It was admitted that the shop is in the tenancy and it was not disputed that the third respondent has a law degree. The prescribed authority allowed the release application on both the count of bonafide need and comparative hardship in favour of the respondent/landlord. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal being Rent Appeal No. 16 of 2014 which was dismissed on 28.2.2015. The petitioner is assailing the aforesaid orders in writ jurisdiction.

(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate Court has not considered that ample accommodation was available with the respondent/landlord, the non-issuance of a Commission has eventually affected the proceedings while recording the finding that the shop in question is the only available shop with the landlord. It is contended that the appellate Court did not consider the relevant aspect that other rooms were available. The Courts below were bound to consider, as to whether the rooms were suitable for the proposed profession. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: Radhey Shyam Rastogi vs. Ashish Kumar and another, 2008 4 AWC 3624, Shanti Devi (Smt.) and others vs. Smt. Ramshree and others, 2013 2 ARC 67, Roman Catholic Diocese Private Limited vs. Addl. District Judge Room No. 13 Agra and others, 2014 2 ARC 787, Dr. Krishna Dev Verma vs. VIth Additional District Judge, Gonda, 2014 32 LCD 1054.

(3.) In rebuttal Sri Siddharth Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that there is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Courts below.