UDAI NATH Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are the tenants of the accommodation in dispute, have preferred these writ petitions challenging the judgment and order dated 30.4.1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Varanasi, by which the Prescribed Authority has allowed release application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and against the judgment and order dated 26.3.1996 by which the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Varansai has dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority.

(2.) A few relevant facts, necessary for the disposal of the writ petition, may be stated. The landlord-respondent filed an application for release of the accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. He averred in the application that by registered partition deed dated 15.4.1976, House No. W-90/1, Galla Mandi, Western Bazar, Mughalsarai, District Varanasi fell in his share. In this way he is a sole owner of the accommodation. He has no other property to either live in or carrying on any trade. It was stated that the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 are tenants of a shop wherein a business of tea vending and 'Pan Beeri' is carried out. The said respondents have a house nearby tea shop where their business can be run. As regards the other part of the same accommodation, shown in the application under Heading 'B' is in the tenancy of the petitioner. It was originally in the tenancy of Ramadhar their predecessor-in-interest. He died about eight years ago. They are carrying on miscalleneous business. It was said that the petitioner-tenants are men of considerable means. They own a big house and land in Village Keli near Mughalsarai. They can acquire another accommodation for the purpose of carrying on their trade. The landlord claimed that he is residing in a portion of House No. A-1/82 which had fallen in the share of other members of the family. They are pressing him to vacate. The son of the landlord has grown up and he wants to carry on the business of selling grain. The place is ideally suited for the purpose because the house is situated near grain market. The need is bona fide and genuine and the accommodation, when released, will be utilised by the owner landlord for the residential purposes as well as for engaging his son in the business.

(3.) THE parities led their evidence and filed their affidavits before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority, Varanasi upheld the claim of partition. He also held that the need of the landlord for residential purpose as also to settle his son in business is bona fide. On the question of likely hardship to the tenant or the landlord the Prescribed Authority has held that the petitioners will not suffer greater hardship.