MOHINDER PAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, BIJNOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that opposite party No. 3 is the owner of a building situate in Mohalla Shamli in the two of Najibabad, district Bijnor. A portion of the ground floor was let out to the petitioner in which he is carrying on soap manufacturing and confectionary business for the last more than 14 years. The opposite party No. 3 moved an application under Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to file a suit against the petitioner on the ground that he genuinely required the disputed premises for his own use. It was alleged in that application that the opposite party had retired in 1971. His son aged about 24 years had given up his studies and would like to start business on ground floor. Besides it, the opposite party had a daughter of marriageable age and the accommodation with him was not sufficient for his needs. It was further alleged that he along with his son would like to do handloom work in the disputed premises.

(3.) The application was contested by the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that the opposite party No. 3 had no genuine need, that there was sufficient accommodation in his possession for his residence; that a portion of a ground floor was in possession of other tenants also and the petitioner should have that portion released if he wanted to run any business. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bijnor, inspected the house and gave a report. Ultimately after considering the comparative needs of the parties he rejected the application for permission to sue on the ground that the landlord had no bonafide need. A revision against this order was filed by the opposite party but in the meantime the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation and Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, came into force and it was transferred to the District Judge for disposal, as required by Section 43(m) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The learned District Judge decided it as an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. He passed the following order :