NASEEM AHMAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against original tenant-respondent No. 2 Mewa Lal in the form of P.A. Case No. 4 of 1978 before the Prescribed Authority/Munsif Shahganj, Jaunpur, Property in dispute is double storied accommodation containing four Khani shop on the ground floor and four rooms on the first floor, which are being used by the tenants for residence. Original tenant Mewalal, respondent No. 2 has died and has been survived by legal representatives. In the release application tenant Mewalal filed written statement and pleaded that Naseem Ahmad was not the only landlord. In this regard reference was made to a suit which had been filed by some of the alleged co-sharers in which Naseem Ahmad was also a party, which was decreed exparte on 26.3.1982 (Original Suit No. 44 of 1971). It was also pleaded that two of the sons of original tenant Mewalal i.e. Radhey Shyam and Sita Ram had purchased 1/9th share of the property in dispute from one Shafi-ullah whose mother Habibunnisha was sister of petitioner's father.

(2.) Prescribed authority held that Naseem Ahmad, petitioner was sole landlord. It was also held by the Prescribed Authority that his need was bonafide. However, hardship of both the parties were not compared by the Prescribed Authority. Prescribe Authority allowed the release application on 2.1.1984. Against the said judgment and order Mewalal, original tenant filed Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 984. Sita Ram, one of the sons of Mewalal, who had allegedly purchased 1/9th share in the property in dispute had also been impleaded in the release application. Sita Ram also filed appeal against judgment and order passed by Prescribed Authority being Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 1984. After the death of Mewa Lal during pendency of this writ petition, his heirs were substituted including Radhey Shyam, also died thereafter and his heirs were substituted. Sita Ram is already Respondent No. 3 in this writ petition.

(3.) Appellate Court rightly found that findings of Prescribed Authority on bonafide need were actually no findings. Appellate Court therefore, remanded the two issues of bonafide need and comparative hardship to the trial court/Prescribed Authority. The said order was passed on 11.1.1989 and is contained in Annexure '9' to the writ petition. There after Prescribed Authority on 17.2.1989 recorded detailed findings on bonafide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord through 11 pages order, copy whereof is Annexure '10' to the writ petition. Thereafter Appellate Court allowed both the appeals through judgment and order dated 21.4.90, hence this writ petition by the landlord.