MOTILAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of Late Sri Shyamlal and the petitioner No. 3 is their mother. Late Shyam Lal was a tenant of a shop on the ground floor in house No. 8, Dharawala, Dehradun, where he carried on the business of Sarrafa since 1927. In the year 1964 the building was purchased by the second respondent, Shrimati Ram Sami Devi. In the meantime" Shyam Lal died in the year 1969 and his business was carried on by his sons and his widow, the present petitioners. The landlady applied under Section 3 of the Act for permission to file a suit for ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that she needed the shop for the use of her son, who was in service but was not satisfied with his job. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application holding that her need was not bona fide and genuine. Her revision petition was dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on the ground that the same was barred by time. She then approached the State Govern ment under Section 7- F of the Act. The State Government has al lowed her representation and has set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and has granted permission to her to file a suit for ejectment of the petitioners. The petitioners have now ap proached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) THIS court has repeatedly held that whenever a landlord wants to evict a sitting tenant he has to prove two things: - (i) that he needs the accommodation for his own use; and (ii) that his need is greater than that of the tenant. In other words, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer when dealing with an application under Section 3 of the Act has first to find that the need of the landlord is genuine and then to compare his heed with that of the tenant. He can grant permission to the landlord to evict a tenant only if the need of the landlord is found to be greater than that of the tenant. In the instant case the Rent Control and Eviction Officer approached the question from a right angle and gave the fol lowing finding with regard to the need of the petitioners: -