RAM BABU Vs. SOHAN LAL GYAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-landlord had filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') for release of the premises in dispute. The prescribed authority allowed the application. The tenant filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 5th September, 2007.

(2.) THE writ petition was earlier allowed by a detailed judgment and order dated 4th December, 2007 and it was observed :-"i find substance on the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner-landlord that the finding that the need of the landlord is not genuine is vitiated by not pointing out to any accommodation/shop in which he could have started the business. It appears that the Court below was swayed by the fact that the landlord's father is carrying on huge business with profits of crores of rupees and that one of the sons of the landlord has started a shop in the main bazaar. In case under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 the landlord has to establish his bona fide need for occupation for himself or any member of his family. The prescribed authority considered the evidence and found that the landlord has the bonafide need to occupy the shop. The Appellate Court considered the same evidence but was unable to point out to any alternative accommodation in vacant condition owned or available to the landlord in which he could have started the business. The fact that the landlord's father and other brothers are doing fairly well in their business at Muthi Ganj, a grain market and they still have common mess was not sufficient to hold that need of the landlord is not bonafide. The writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by A. D. J. , court No. 1 dated 5. 9. 2007 in Rent Control Appeal No. 220 of 2005 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Court to decide it afresh in accordance with law. The Appellate Court will endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously and in any case within a period of three months after issuing notice to the tenant and landlord. "

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents has not been able to convince the court that the aforesaid observations/directions of the Court need any change. He, however, submitted that the appeal may be heard afresh on all the points raised in the appeal. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the earlier observations/directions contained in the judgment and order dated 4th December, 2007 stand with the clarification that the appeal shall be heard on all the points and shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is filed by either of the parties before the Appellate Court. Petition Allowed.