GIRJA SHANKAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed in this case. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The dispute relates to premises No. 37/1, Mukaryana, Jhansi of which the respondent No. 3, Ashok Kumar is the owner while petitioner--Girja Shankar Swarnkar is the tenant. A petition under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 was instituted by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner for release of the accommodation on the ground that the landlord has bonafide and genuine need to occupy the same. The petition was contested by the tenant Girja Shankar, now the petitioner before this Court. After taking into consideration the material brought on record, the Prescribed Authority by Order dated 28.1.1993 released the premises in favour of the landlord. The petitioner tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, being Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1993. This appeal was dismissed on 21.7.1993 by the then District Judge, Jhansi. Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the need of the landlord respondent No. 3 to occupy the tenanted accommodation, in occupation of the petitioner Girja Shankar was bonafide and genuine. I was taken through the two judgments of the Courts below. At the outset, it may be mentioned here that the orders passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. They have appraised the evidence and the circumstances of the case in its true perspective.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner further urged that even if a small room, which is in occupation of the petitioner as tenant is released in favour of the landlord, it is not going to satisfy his need for additional accommodation keeping in view the number of family members of the landlord. It was also suggested that there are other tenants who are occupying separate accommodations against whom no release petition has been moved.

(3.) I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner. It is no gain-saying that the landlord has not yet proceeded against the other tenants who are occupying separate portions. It is well settled proposition of law that the landlord may make choice in the matter and if his choice has fallen on the present petitioner, it would not militate against bonafide need of the landlord. As regards the submission that the small accommodation in occupation of the petitioner is not going to completely fulfil the additional need of the landlord, it may be pointed out that this again is a submission which merits rejection. It is for the landlord to manage his own affairs. In what manner he would use the released accommodation is not a matter which would be made subject to the judicial scrutiny. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the Appellate Court has observed that the disputed accommodation which is going to be released in favour of the landlord is most suitable for the landlord. It has also been concluded that the tenant-petitioner is in a position and has the means to hire another alternative accommodation. In view of the concurrent finding of the Courts below and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances. I find that the present writ petition is not well merited. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.