SHAKEEL AHMAD Vs. RAM BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant petition questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated 19.01.1998 passed by Prescribed Authority allowing the release application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and order of its affirmance dated 12.09.2008 passed in Appeal filed under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

(2.) Brief facts of the case is that Ram Babu S/o Ganeshi Lal filed application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the petitioner as well as respondents No. 2 to 8 mentioning therein that he has been serving as Teacher in Government Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Mitarbar, District Gwalior Madhya Pradesh and he was staying in a tenanted house and he was about to retire and he has got his wife and two sons who are unemployed and three daughters, and he intends to settle at Kashganj as such accommodation in question is bonafidly required. Said application was opposed by filing written statement contending therein that need set up is not at all bonafide and genuine one. Before Prescribed Authority evidence was led from both the side and thereafter Prescribed Authority found the need of landlord to be genuine and bonafide one and accommodation being required for settling both unemployed sons. On comparative hardship front also finding has been returned in favour of the landlord. Against the said order Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 1998 was filed and same was also dismissed on 12.09.2008. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Sri A.K. Gutpa, Advocate appearing on behalf of tenant contended with vehemence that in the present case both the courts below have clearly erred in law in accepting landlords need to be bonafide and genuine one and even on the comparative hardship by recording finding in favour of the landlord whereas facts demonstrated otherwise. Coupled with this once building in question was to be demolished then compliance of Rule 17 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Rules 1972 ought to have been looked into and both the courts below have failed to advert itself in the present case, on said aspect of the matter, as such orders passed are liable to be quashed.