NANAK SARAN Vs. SANT LAL SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a tenant of a shop of which the respondents are landlords. THE landlords made an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972,for the release of the shop in the petitioner's occupation on the ground that they bona fide required the same for their personal use and occupation. THE petitioner contested the application and asserted that the landlords' need was not bona fide and genuine and that great hardship would be caused to him If he was evicted from the shop in dispute. THE Prescribed Authority by his order dated 25th June, 1975, allowed the landlords' application and directed the petitioner's eviction on the ground that the landlords' need was bona fide and genuine. THE petitioner preferred an appeal against that order. THE District Judge, Barabanki, by his order dated 20th May, 1976, dismissed the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the aforesaid order*.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the Prescribed' Authority as well as the District Judge both released the shop in question in landlords' favour in contravention of the statutory provisions of law as contained in the fourth proviso to Section 21 of the Act. He further contended that rule 16 framed under the Act prescribes factors which are required to be taken into account by the Prescribed Authority while considering the application under Section 21 of the Act for release of the accommodation in landlords' favour. One of the factors mentioned therein is the likely hardship which may be' caused to the tenant in case the landlords' application is allowed. It was further contended that neither the Prescribed Authority nor the District Judge considered this question and they released the shop in landlords' favour merely on the finding that the landlords' need was bona fide and genuine. I find considerable force in the contention.

(3.) IN the instant case the Prescribed Authority as well as the District Judge considered the question of bona fide need of the landlords at length. They have recorded a finding that the need of the landlords was bona fide and genuine but none of them compared the need of the landlords with that of the tenant, nor they considered the question of the likely hardship that would be caused to the tenant on the grant of landlords' application. IN the circumstances the impugned order of release was passed in contravention of the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules which are not sustainable in law.