NATH MALL Vs. KAILASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Gulati, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20th April, 1988 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Meerut in Misc. Appeal No. 237, 1987. The petitioner is admittedly the landlord/owner of a accommodation which has been described as a godown No. 225-C, Ganjbazar, Sadar, Meerut Cant. , Meerut, Initially a partnership firm M/s. Shanker Das Durga Prasad Adhati and its partners were the tenants of the accommodation aforesaid but subsequently Kailash Chandra, the 1st respondent became the sole tenant and on this point there is no dispute between the parties. During the pendency of this writ petition Kailash Chandra died and his heirs were allowed to be substituted by an order dated 28th November, 1994 passed by this Court.

(2.) THE facts are that the petitioner landlord had sought release of the accom modation aforesaid (here in after referred to as "the disputed accommodation") under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act), on the ground that the same was required for the bona fide need of the petitioner for setting up his own business in Ghee and oil. THE application for release was granted by the Prescribed Authority on the findings that the need of the petitioner was bona fide and genuine inasmuch as the petitioner required the disputed accommodation for the purpose of setting up of his own business. Another finding of the Prescribed Authority was that the comparative hardship of the petitioner would be greater if the release application was to be rejected as compared to the hardship of the respon dent-tenant if the application for release was granted. Against the order 01 the Prescribed Authority the tenant-respondent preferred an appeal as provided under Section 22 of the Act.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further it may be noticed that Section 21 of the Act inter alia provides for contingencies in which a landlord can approach the Prescribed Authority for eviction of a sitting tenant and may seek the release of the accom modation under his tenancy. It says, if building or a portion thereof is bona fide required in its existing form or after demolition and construction by the landlord for himself or any member of his family etc. , either for residential purpose or for the purpose of any profession trade or calling, the landlord may move an application before the Prescribed Authority for eviction of the tenant and for release of the accommodation in his favour. The said provision further directs that if the Assessing Authority is satisfied about the bona fide need of the applicant and it is found that the comparative hardship of the applicant-landlord would be greater than that of the tenant in the event the application is refused, the Prescribed Authority may order the eviction of the tenant from the building under his tenancy or any specified part thereof. The entitlement of the landlord to the order of release is dependent on the fulfilment of the statutory conditions to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority. On such satisfaction the Prescribed Authority is free to direct the release of tenanted accommodation after taking into account the pros and cons in judicial manner of the case set- up by the contesting parties. If the claim of the landlord is not dishonest and he has no oblique motive or is not for any designed purpose of eviction the tenant his need should be held to be bona fide. The scheme of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act is to protect the tenants from frivolous eviction from the accommodation in their tenancy and occupation. The question whether the need is bona fide depends on motivation that protects a person. The question about bona fide need is required to be decided objectively by the court or authority and not on the subjective satisfac tion of the needy landlord or that of the tenant.