HARI PRASAD VERMA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been I filed by the tenant for setting aside the order dated 21-8-2007 by which the Prescribed Authority allowed the application filed by the landlord 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' ). The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 31-1-2008 by which the appeal filed by the tenant under section 22 of the Act for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed.

(2.) THE records of the writ petition indicate that the landlord had filed the application un der Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground that the same was bona fide re quired by the landlord for establishing a chamber for his son who was engaged in the profession of law. It was stated that the land lord was practicing in the Civil Court for the last 39 years and his sole son Shri Ved Prakash Kesharwani had also started law practice in the year 1996; that the landlord had a very small residential portion in which it was not possible to establish another independent chamber for his son and that the landlord would suffer greater hardship in case the ap plication was rejected. During the pendency of the application, the tenant moved an ap plication before the Prescribed Authority of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for inspection of the house of the landlord to determine the extent of accommodation avail able with him as the case taken up by the ten ant was that the landlord had two indepen dent chambers in the residential house and so did not require the premises in dispute. THE Advocate Commissioner submitted a report that there was only one chamber on the ground floor of the house where the landlord was re siding. THE tenant filed objections and the report was accepted subject to evidence be ing led. THE tenants thereafter filed the map sanctioned by the Authority in which both the ground floor and top floor were shown for commercial purposes.

(3.) THE contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord did not bona fide require the premises in dis pute. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel submitted that the Advocate Commis sioner submitted a wrong report that there was only one chamber on the ground floor in the residential premises of the landlord when, in fact, there was one more chamber on the first floor. Learned counsel submitted that the ten ant had filed the map sanctioned by the Au thority in which the premises were shown for commercial use and, therefore, the first floor of the house was also being used for the cham ber. This contention cannot be accepted. THE Advocate Commissioner submitted a detailed report mentioning therein that only one room on the ground floor was being used as a cham ber. This report was accepted subject to evi dence and even according to the learned coun sel for the petitioner the only evidence that was filed by him in support of this plea was the map sanctioned by the Authority. This map cannot determine whether two rooms were being used as chambers in the residential house or only one room on the ground floor was used as a chamber. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Alok Brothers (Tea), Pvt. Ltd. Kanpur v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, and others, 1989 (2) ARC 99 : (1989 All LJ 876) and Amar Nath Tandon v. G. K. Bhargava and others, 1987 (1) ARC 297 : (1987 All LJ 564) in support of his conten tion that the objection filed by him to the re port submitted by the Advocate Commis sioner should have been considered. In the present case the objection have been consid ered but it has been found that the tenant could not substantiate that two rooms were being as chambers. THEse decisions do not, there fore, help the petitioner. In such circum stances, when there was no clinching evidence to establish that two rooms were used as chambers, the finding recorded by the Pre scribed Authority and the Appellate Author ity that only room on the ground floor was being used as a chamber and that the land lord bona fide required the premises for his son for his chamber cannot be said to be per verse.