BABU LAL Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In spite of sufficient service no one appeared for landlords-respondents 2 to 10 Girish Kumar and others. Heard learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioners.

(2.) This writ petition arises out of release/eviction proceedings initiated by deceased Sadi Ram and his three sons who are respondents 2, 3 and 4 against tenant petitioner on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972. Sri Sadi Ram died during pendency of proceedings before the courts below. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 50/per month. Tenant-petitioners are carrying on business of whole sale of cycles from the shop in dispute. In the release application need set up was for Sadi Ram (since deceased) and Girish Kumar. It was stated that Girish Kumar had technical qualification from Roorkee Polytechnic and intended to open a shop for carrying on business of goods relating to sanitary fittings etc. for which he had no other shop. Admittedly tenant-petitioners had other shops available to them. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 5 of 1978. Prescribed authority Deoband district Saharanpur held that the need of the landlord was bonafide. However, release application was dismissed through Judgment and order dated 21.1.1979 on the ground that in case of eviction tenant would suffer greater hardship. Prescribed Authority found that other shops available to the tenants were not suitable for the business which they were carrying on from the shop in dispute. Against the said Judgment and order landlords filed R.C. Appeal No. 31 of 1979. Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 3.10.1979. Against the said Judgments landlords filed Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 152 of 1980. Writ Petition was allowed on 20.10.1982 Findings on bonafide need of the landlord were confirmed. The matter was remanded to the Appellate Court to reconsider the question on comparative hardship. Thereafter IVth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur through Judgment and order dated 24.6.1986 allowed Rent Control appeal No. 31 of 1979 and consequently release application of the landlord was allowed. Appellate Court held that tenant had other shops available, hence the question of comparative hardship was to be decided against them.

(3.) I do not find least error in the findings recorded by the Appellate Court in respect of comparative hardship. Tenants have got other shops available to them. Apart from it they did not show as to what efforts they made to search (purchase or to take on rent) another shop suitable for their business. This by itself was sufficient to decide the question of hardship against them. (See: B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada AIR2003 SC 2713, JT2003 (1)SC 438, 2003 (1)SCALE147, (2003)2 SCC320, 2003 (1)UJ726 (SC). Tenants are carrying on business of wholesale of cycle, hence they must have earned lot of money.