DAU DASS Vs. PURSHOTTAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) FIRST writ petition has been filed by the tenant and the second by the landlords. Both the writ petition are directed against the judgment and order dated 4-8-1988 passed by IV Additional District Judge, Azamgarh in Miscellaneous Appeal (Rent Control Act) No. 7 of 1987, Sri Dutt Dass v. Purshottam. The said appeal was filed against judgment and order dated 2-1-1987 passed by Prescribed Authority/civil Judge, Azamgarh in P. A. case No. 13 of 1985, Purshottam Dass & Ors. v. Dau Dass. The said case had been initiated by the landlords for eviction of the tenant Dau Dass on the ground of bona fide need and dilapidated condition of the building in dispute, which was being used by the tenant for residential as well as commercial purpose. Prescribed Authority held that the building was in a dilapidated condition. Prescribed Authority further held that landlords required the premises in dispute after reconstruction for settling the son of landlord applicant No. 1, Purshottam Das in business. Appellate Court affirmed the finding of dilapidated condition of the building, however, the finding of bona fide need was reversed, hence both landlords as well as tenant filed these writ petitions against the judgment of the Appellate Court.

(3.) AS far as the bona fide need of the landlords is concerned, the Appellate Court held that it was proved that landlords were doing business at large scale and were using their residential house as godown for their Kerana business (general merchandise ). It was held that as landlords were doing wholesale business hence the fact that their shop was situated in a narrow lane (Gali) would not make much difference. In my opinion, the findings are erroneous in law. Wholesalers also require shop on the main road. Availability of less suitable shop is no ground to reject release application for the shop on the main road vide C. Prasad v. U. K. Verma & Ors. , AIR 2002 SC 108. Further, the fact that landlords were using their residential house for commercial purpose fully proved their bona fide need for commercial accommodation. No landlord can be compelled to continue to use portion of his residential house for commercial purpose in order to protect the possession of the tenant.