NEERAJ KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. JAI PRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition filed by the petitioners- tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the order dated 28-8-2001 passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 29-11-2005 passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of the present writ petition in brief are that the petitioner is the tenant of the shop in dispute and the respondent is the landlord. An application under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act was filed before the prescribed authority under the Act by the respondent-landlord, which was registered as P. A. case No. 6 of 1996 on the ground that the building in which the shop in dispute is situated, is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. It is stated in the application that the landlord has no option except to reconstruct the shop in dispute and he has got sanctioned the map from the local body concerned. In support of his case, the landlord has filed report of R. K. Pandey, Junior Engineer (Civil) and other material. THE tenant filed his objection to the application filed by the landlord stating therein that it is not correct that the building in which the shop in dispute is situated, is in dilapidated condition or requires reconstruction. It is further stated by the landlord that the landlord is un-employed and wants to start new business in the construed building. THE tenant has denied the stand taken by the landlord and stated that the landlord is active in politics and he has hardly any time to run any business. He runs business alongwith his father. Thus, the need of the landlord is denied by the tenant. During the pendency of the application before the prescribed authority the landlord filed an application seeking amendment in his application filed under Section 21 (1) (b) to the effect that before the word (b) after 21 (1) word (a) may be permitted to be added, meaning thereby the application may also be considered under the provisions of Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, namely release of the shop in dispute for landlord's bona fide need. THE landlord also submitted before the prescribed authority that after demolition of the building he will construct five shops and out of these five shops, he will retain two shops for his own need and two shops he will give to other two persons who have agreed to pay him advance and remaining one shop, he is ready to let out to the petitioner. THE petitioner-tenant contested the application on the point of bona fide need. THE prescribed authority after considering the material available on record arrived at the conclusion that the building in which the disputed shop is situated, is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and thereafter reconstruction. It also found that the need of the landlord is bona fide and further that the tilt of comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord, as the landlord has no business nor any place to start his own business and particularly in view of the offer made by the landlord that he will give one shop to the tenant after reconstruction, the prescribed authority allowed the application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) and directed for release of the shop in dispute vide order dated 28-8- 2001. Against the aforesaid order the tenant-petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. THE appellate authority after discussing the evidence on record and respective arguments maintained the finding of the prescribed authority with regard to the building being in dilapidated condition which requires reconstruction after demolition and also affirmed the finding that the need of the landlord is bona fide and further that the tilt of comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29-11-2005. Thus, this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner states that if the arguments advanced by him do not find favour of the Court, the tenant may kindly be granted some reasonable time to vacate the shop as the tenant is carrying on business from the disputed shop.