RASHID AHMAD Vs. RAISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M.A. Qadir, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shamim Ahmad for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kant Singh for the respondent and perused the record. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 31.8.2002 and 6.2.2009 by which the release application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 of the respondent landlord has been allowed by both the courts below. The respondent-landlord made an application under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 with the allegation that Liaqat Ali, his son was a disabled person as both his legs and one arm had been amputated due to a railway accident, was running a P.C.O shop next to the disputed accommodation but for his various conveniences he had to be bodily lifted to the first floor with help of others and therefore, the said premises was required for his use. Both the courts below have upheld the need of the landlord and decided that the issue of comparative hardship was also in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that during the pendency of the proceedings, another shop had been released in favour of the landlord and therefore the need, if any stood satisfied. The courts below have found, as a matter of fact, that the shop which has been vacated, was at a distance of 50 meters from the disputed shop and therefore, it was useless for his son as it could not be used for the purpose of which the release application had been filed. This finding of fact is based on evidence on record and has not been shown to be perverse. Accordingly, the argument cannot be accepted. It is then urged that the issue of comparative hardship has also been wrongly decided. A perusal of the record would show that both the courts below have recorded categorical finding that due to nature of handicap of the landlord's son, in case the application is rejected, the same would cause more hardship to him than the petitioner. It also took note of the fact that the wife of the petitioner was landlord of another shop which had been let out. These finding, in the opinion of the Court, do not suffer from any apparent error of law. No other point has been urged. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. However, in case the petitioner gives an undertaking within three weeks from today before the trial court that he would vacate the premises and handover peaceful possession to the landlord within six months from today, his eviction shall remain stayed for six months from today. The petitioner shall also deposit the entire rent and mesne profit etc. within three weeks from today. In case of failure to comply with any of the conditions, the order shall automatically stand discharged.