PHIRAYA LAL Vs. II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner is a tenant of a portion of house No. 51, Wrightganj East Ghaziabad. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are the landlords of the said premises. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that the property in question is bona fide required by the respondents-landlords for residential purposes after demolition and new constructions. It was alleged that the respondents-landlords are living in a portion of a shop in Wrightganj East which is neither sufficient for business nor for residential purposes. It was alleged that the disputed house was purchased by the respondents-landlords for the reason that they had shortage of accommodation, and as such they required the house bona fide for their personal use and occupation. THIS application was contested by the petitioner. It was alleged that the need of the landlord-respondents was not bona fide and that the application for release has been moved on mala fide grounds. It was alleged that the landlords had many other alternative accommodations available to them and that they have also share in several properties and as such the need was not genuine. It was also alleged that the respondents-landlords are comfortably living in the house which is presently in their occupation. In particular it was stated that portions of the house which were in occupation of Anand Prakash Mittal and Radhey Mohan Pandey were ' pucca ' and that the portions in the occupation of Anand Prakash Mittal and Radhey Mohan Pandey were forcibly demolished by the landlords-respondents. It was consequently alleged that in case the need of the landlord-respondents was genuine, they would never have demolished the portions in the occupation of Anand Prakash Mittal and Radhey Mohan Pandey. It was also alleged that the landlords-respondents, in fact, want to get the disputed portions released so that they can raise a commercial market.

(2.) THE prescribed authority by his order dated 1-9-1982 allowed the release application. THE prescribed authority after examining the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the need of the landlords-respondents was bona fide and genuine and that on a comparison of the hardship of the parties it found that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord in case the release application was not allowed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the two portions in occupation of the tenant, namely, Anand Prakash Mittal and Radhey Mohan Pandey have been vacated by the tenants. They were lying vacant, they had been demolished by the landlords with a mala fide object and as such the need set up by the landlords is not bonafide and genuine. It was further urged that reconstruction can be made on the site of the portions occupied by Anand Prakash Mittal and Radhey Mohan Pandey and as such also the case set up by the landlords-respondents that the property in dispute occupied by the petitioner is required for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide. This circumstance was a relevant circumstance to be considered by the courts below which they have not considered and as such the findings recorded in regard to bona fide need is vitiated in law.