ALLAH NOOR Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition arising out of the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Before the writ petition was admitted Mr. S. N. Agarwal filed his appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2 who was granted time for filing a counter affidavit. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, it was thought desirable that the writ petition should be disposed of finally at the admission stage as provided in the second proviso to rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court. Therefore with the consent of the parties this is being disposed of finally.

(2.) THE petitioner is tenant of the accommodation consisting of two rooms and a court-yard. THE aforesaid accommodation is a part of the building owned by respondent no. 2. Out of two rooms occupied by the petitioner one is used as a shop and the other for residential purposes. THE accommodation in question is separated by a wall and has its separate identity.

(3.) I have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. N. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that since the respondent landlord has sought release of the accommodation in question for installing a machine, the appellate court should have strictly construed rule 16 of the rules framed under the Act inasmuch as the Prescribed Authority has recorded a categorical finding that the accommodation which was available with the landlord was sufficient for running his business. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the finding recorded by the appellate court that "it is the well settled law when both the landlord and the tenant are in need of the accommodation the need of the landlord shall be preferred," and contended that once the appellate court came to the conclusion that the needs of the landlord and that of the tenant petitioner were genuine there was no reason to give preference to the landlord instead of not ordering the eviction of the tenant. Mr. S. N. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that it is well settled that where needs of the landlord and tenant are equally balanced preference has to be given to the landlord on the basis of the authorities of this Court. As far as the needs of the landlord and tenant as well as the hardship likely to be caused to the landlord and tenant are concerned they can neither be measured nor weighed and as such to term the comparative hardship or the need of the landlord and tenant equal in my opinion is not in conformity with rule 16 and the hardship, which is likely to be caused to the landlord and tenant, is bound to vary according to the facts of each case. Assuming, even if the authorities under the Act comes to the conclusion that same type of hardship is likely to be caused to both sides the hardship is bound to vary in degrees and until and unless there is some additional circumstance in favour of the landlord, the authorities should not lean towards the landlord though the hardship likely to be caused to the tenant is the same or equal as termed in some cases.