RAISUDDIN Vs. ABIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.R. Maurya, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant-landlady/respondent.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly applicant-respondent is the owner and landlady of the house situate in Mohalla Darudgaran, Shahipeer Gate, Meerut, in which the defendant-petitioner is a tenant of a shop. There is no dispute of landlord-tenant relationship between the applicant-landlady/respondent and the defendant-tenant/petitioner. The applicant-landlady/respondent filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 being P.A. Case No. 51 of 2006 (Smt. Abida v. Raisuddeen) which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Cause Court, Meerut by judgment and order dated 16.2.2013 . Aggrieved with this judgment the defendant-tenant/petitioner filed a Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2013 (Raisuddeen v. Smt. Abida) which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 15.1.2018 , passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Meerut. Aggrieved with these two judgements the defendant-tenant/petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner submits that the plaintiff-landlady/respondent not only owns a residential house but also two more shops. Her husband is a Corporator and is also serving as an Assistant Teacher in a Junior High School. Under the circumstances she was not in a bona fide need. The bona fide need could not be established by her and yet the courts below have passed the impugned judgment allowing the release application. The courts below have also not considered properly the comparative hardship which was in favour of the defendant-tenant/petitioner.