JEET SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition sought for quashing the orders dated 28-5-86 and 2-9-85 passed by respondent No. 1 and 2 (Annexure 10 and 9 to the writ petition).

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant in a partition of House No. 67, Luniya, Dehradun and has been in possession thereon. Respondent No. 3 is the landlord of the building in dispute. Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the building in dispute on the ground that it is bona fide required by him and in case it is not released, he will a suffer a great hardship. The petitioner contested the said application. It was alleged that the landlord sold his another house only few days before the filing of the present application and his need even otherwise is not bona fide. The Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2 allowed the application on 20th Aug., 1980 but on appeal the case was remanded back for decision afresh. After remand, respondent No. 2 again allowed the said application on 2nd Sept., 1985. Thereafter, an appeal filed and the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 28th May, 1986. Both these two orders after remand passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner has challenged these orders on number of grounds. One of the challenges to these orders is that in comparing the hardships between the landlord and tenant, the authorities below committed an error in recording the finding that the petitioner's married daughter has an alternative accommodation available where the petitioner could shift, cannot be sustained since the married daughter is not a member of the family. The second ground of attack in that apart from this before recording a finding on comparative need and hardship between the landlord and tenant under Sec. 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 it is necessary to record a finding on bona fide need. It was argued that no finding on bona fide need recorded in the present case and thus both orders cannot be sustained, In the present case if this finding of bona fide he has not been recorded by both the courts below, then the order cannot be sustained and it would not be necessary for this Court to go into first at this stage.

(3.) It was vehemently argued that actually in the case finding has been recorded by the Prescribed Authority. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 on the portion of the finding of Prescribed Authority that the landlord has only two rooms and great hardship would be caused to the landlord in case his release application is not allowed. It is on these findings the arguments were addressed that this is a finding of bona fide need of the landlord. The said argument cannot be sustained. The aforesaid findings would not be sufficient. The language used in Sec. 21 of the aforesaid Act it regarding the bona fide need. The bona fide need may be for the part or whole of the accommodation in possession of the tenant. Thus, after regarding hardship of the landlord qua the tenant further finding of the extent of bona fide need of the landlord qua the accommodation available with the tenant has to be recorded, I find in the present case the Prescribed Authority completely failed to record this finding. Mere recording the finding that great hardship would be caused to the landlord without recording the finding of bona fide need would be against the very ingredient of the aforesaid section.