PRABHU DAYAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order of the Ninth Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 3.4.1976. Prabhu Dayal Kapoor is the tenant of house No. 54, Akhara Man Khan, Allahabad. The house belongs to Sohan Lal Mehrotra, respondent No. 3. It is an admitted fact that Sohan Lal Mehrotra's sister was married to Prabhu Dayal Kapoor.

(2.) An application was field by Sohan Lal Mehrotra under Sec. 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for release of the house in the tenancy of Prabhu Dayal Kapoor. The application was contended by Prabhu Dayal Kapoor. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application. It held that the need of respondent No. 3 was bona fide and that he was likely to suffer greater hardship incase the application filed by him was rejected. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Prescribed Authority the petitioner took up the matter to the District Judge by means of an appeal under Sec. 22 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed by the Learned Additional District Judge by an order dated 3.4.1996. Against the said order, the present writ petition was filed by Prabhu Dayal Kapoor.

(3.) Sri R.N. Bhalla, Counsel for the petitioners, contended that after the amendment made in Sec. 21, by Amending Act No. 28 of 1976 it was incumbent upon learned Additional District Judge to; have decided the question of comparative hardship. According to his submission, the learned Additional District Judge was wrong in not going into the said controversy on an erroneous view that as Rule 16 of the Rules had been declared ultra vires, in the case of Chandra Kumar Shah Vs. District Judge, Varanasi, 1976 AIR 95 the said question did not arise for decision. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to be well founded. It cannot be denied that after the amendment made by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976, by the Learned Additional District Judge should gone into the said question.