GIRRAJ KISHOR Vs. RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority-Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Agra in Rent Control Appeal No. 45 of 2014 (Rameshwar Prasad Sharma vs Ashok Bhatnagar and another) insofar as it sets aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 03.04.2014 rejecting the Release Application for the shop in question in House No. 17/260 Chhili Int Road, Agra.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Prescribed Authority had dealt with the issue of bonafide need and has found the need of the landlord-respondent No. 1 herein, as neither genuine nor urgent. The Prescribed Authority in its order has observed that the applicant, respondent No.1 herein had a house of his own as well as two houses adjoining to it, therefore it could not be said that the house the tenant was currently occupying i.e. House No. 17/260 Chhili Int Road, Agra was in a dilapidated condition, which needed to be demolished including the shop, which the petitioner was occupying to build a house of his own for the residence of his niece and nephew along with him. The landlord could not lead sufficient evidence with regard to the need expressed regarding construction of Garage in the shop in question for the purposes of housing the car given to him by his nephew. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that from documentary evidence of receipt of rent of Garage taken outside the premises at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month, and despite the Toll Tax receipt and receipt for purchase of petrol, it could only be established that the car was being used by the applicant, but it did not make out any case that the car in question was actually given by the nephew to the applicant to be kept by him in his own house.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued further that the Prescribed Authority rightly came to the conclusion that bonafide need could not be established. It has however, also looked into the comparative hardship of the petitioner, who runs a small tea stall in 8' X 7' feet shop. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord Rameshwar Prasad Sharma was unmarried and issueless and he already had three houses in his ownership, namely, House No. 17/260, House No. 17/261 and House No. 17/263 all adjoining the disputed premises. Therefore, there was no need for him to build a new residential House No. 17/262 by demolishing the old structure and making new construction including a garage in place of tea shop.