GANDHI ASHRAM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant of an accommodation of which respondents 3 to 7 are the landlords. As application was made by these respondents under Sec. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for permission to file a suit against the petitioner. During the pendency of that application, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came into force and the application was treated as an application under Sec. 21 of the new Act. The application was contested by the petitioner but was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 7th Jan., 1974. The petitioner filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed by the District Judge on 4th March, 1974. It is these two orders which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that according to the case of the respondents 3 to 7 the shop in question was needed for the use of Rajesh Kumar respondent No. 6 who had started a medical store but since the said Rajesh Kumar was already carrying on his business by taking a shop on rent in Mohalla Khalapar the need of respondents 3 to 7 for the accommodation in question could not be held to be genuine. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the District Judge and he has come to the conclusion that notwithstanding this fact the need of the landlords was genuine. The finding recorded by the prescribed authority an the District Judge that the need of the landlords was more genuine and pressing than that of the petitioner is a finding of fact based on appraisal of' evidence and cannot he challenged in a writ petition.

(3.) It was then urged by counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the prescribed authority was illegal, inasmuch as the said authority had not awarded an amount equal to two years rent as compensation to the petitioner as required by the second proviso to Sec. 21(l) of the new Act. Counsel for the petitioner was, however, unable to point on any material on the record indicating that the petitioner raised the question for the Prescribed Authority that he should be awarded two years rent a compensation. In Inderjeet Singh Vs. Prescribed Authority Moradabad and another, AIR 1974 Allahabad 120 a division bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the scope of the aforesaid second proviso to Sec. 21(1). It was held that the said proviso was tot mandatory but only directory and it leaves a discretion in the matter to the Prescribed Authority. It was further held, "we are of opinion that if the tenant does not raise the question of compensation, the Prescribed Authority has no authority and is not bound to award compensation under the proviso in question". In view of Inderjeet Singh's case (supra), the order of the Prescribed Authority cannot be said to be vitiated in law on the ground that two years rent as compensation was not awarded to the petitioner.