RAJENDRA PRAKASH GARG Vs. BAL KISHORE AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A. K. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is owner and landlord of shop No. 299, Sarain Kham, Sunhari Masjid, Bareilly wherein the respondent is tenant at the rate of Rs. 100 per month. Petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act) for release of the shop which was registered as P.A. Case No. 21 of 2004. In support of the release application, the petitioner filed his own affidavit as P.W. 1 and that of son Rajat Garg PW-2 and Murlidhar Agarwal and Manish Chand Agarwal PW-3 and PW-4 respectively. THE tenant contested the said application and filed a written statement.

(3.) AGGRIEVED from the impugned judgment of the prescribed authority, the tenant preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 18 of 2007. The appellate court vide its order dated 19.1.2008 allowed the appeal. Though the appellate court affirmed the finding about the bona fide need of the landlord recorded by the prescribed authority yet set aside the release order only on the ground that the prescribed authority, committed error in deciding "comparative hardship" in favour of the landlord under misapprehension as if provision of Rule 16 (2) (a) was mandatory. It is apparent from the foregoing circumstances that the tenant has all along adopted delaying tactics and it is probably for this reason he had not appeared in this Court despite service of notice.