MOOL CHAND Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed by Mool Chand sitting tenant of the disputed shop challenging the order passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri allowing the appeal of the landlord after setting aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and releasing the disputed premises in favour of the appellant under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1973.

(2.) THE petitioner was also awarded compensation equivalent to two years' rent. On presentation of the motion notice on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 have been accepted by Shri Shafiq Mirza who has also filed his power. I had stayed the proceedings till the petition was heard as regards admission. The petition is for admission today.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged that hardship that was to be caused to the sitting tenant has not been given due weight by the Appellate Court. I am unable to subscribe to this view. The learned Judge has first considered the question of bonafide need and thereafter proceeded to consider the hardship that would be caused. Apart from other reasons two main factors appears to have weighed in the mind of the learned Appellate Court, namely, that the Respondent No. 2 was seventy years old and his sons were duly settled while the petitioner was 46 years age and had unemployed sons who had no means of livelihood and they intended to start their own business. On the other hand, Respondent No. 2 was in occupation of the shop on meager rent and all his sons had established and were carrying on business. He has also got some alternative accommodation. It is, no doubt, true that hardship is always caused to a person when he is asked to vacate the premises. The hardship and the bonafide need cannot be weighed in golden scales and no yardstick can be proved for guidelines to adjudge the same. They are always to be adjudged in the light of attending circumstances in each case. Learned Appellate Court has considered each and every documents and submissions vividly in his judgment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the judgment of the Appellate Court was contrary to evidence on record. It would not be out of place to mention that since 1977 landlord had been trying to get the possession of the shop but had miserably failed. At one stage the litigation had been brought up this Court and while remanding the case I had directed the Judge to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible after providing opportunity to the petitioner to file documents in rebuttal if he so desired and landlord insisted for additional evidence being taken on the record. The learned Appellate Court had allowed full opportunity to the petitioner to file documents and lead evidence.