SANTOSHI LAL Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MAINPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by original landlord respondent No. 3 Mohd. Shafi on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of Case No. 1 of 1982 on the file of Prescribed authority, Shikohabad District Mainpuri. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 20/- per month. At the time of the filing of the release application landlord had four sons Shamshad Irshad, Mohd. Nazim and Mohd. Kazim. Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 27-4-1985 rejected the release application. Against the said judgment and order original landlord Mohd. Shafi filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1985. Before the Appellate Court landlord admitted that two of his sons Shamshad and Irshad had been allotted a shop hence shop in dispute was required only for himself. The appellate Court found that landlord had no shop, hence his need was bona fide. This finding was perfectly correct. However, I may mention that in para 23 of the written statement tenant had mentioned that his need was greater than the need of the landlord. From this assertion Appellate Court concluded that tenant had himself admitted the need of the landlord. I cannot approve this view. The tenant had only meant that in case of eviction he would suffer greater hardship. The mere use of the word that tenant's need was greater than the need of the landlord did not amount to admission of the tenant of the need of the landlord. However, thereafter, Appellate Court found that landlord required a shop for his business and he was not having any shop and hence his need was quite bona-fide. This finding is approved.

(2.) IN respect of comparative hardship Appellate Court rightly held that tenant did not make any efforts to search alternative accommodation hence question of comparative hardship had to be decided against him. This finding is perfectly in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in B. C. Bhutada v. G. R. Mundada, AIR 2003 SC 2713. Accordingly it is held that there is absolutely no error in the finding of bona fide need and comparative hardship recorded by the Appellate Court/first ADj Mainpuri in his judgment dated 20-9-1988 through which appeal was allowed and judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside and release application was allowed.

(3.) AS the fact that Mohd. Nazim and Mohd. Kazim are not doing any independent business has been admitted, hence there is no need to remand the matter to the trial Court. In the aforesaid authority of K. N. Agarwal Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court and not to the Court of Prescribed Authority or appeal. If some complicated question of fact had been involved in this case then the remand would have been considered appropriate.