HEERA LAL Vs. GIRJA SHANKAR PORWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 25.4.1994 whereby the disputed shop has been released in favour of landlord -respondent No. 1 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22.10.1999 affirming the said order in appeal. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent No. 1 filed an application for release of the disputed shop under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) with the allegations that he had a 'chat' shop in a shop taken by him on rent. His landlord got him evicted from the said shop and there is no source of his livelihood and he wants to carry on business in the disputed shop by having a 'chat' shop. The petitioner contested the application. It was stated by him that the respondent No. 1 has 6 tenants and further in a gallery of the shop he is selling 'chat'. The Prescribed Authority appointed a Commissioner and obtained a report. On consideration of the material evidence, he came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 has no other shop. He had one shop where he had been selling 'chat' but he had to vacate the same as his landlord got it vacated. The application was allowed on 25.4.1997. The petitioner preferred an appeal and respondent No. 2 has dismissed the appeal on 22.10.1999.

(2.) I have heard Sri B.N. Agrawal learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent.

(3.) SRI Agrawal, further contended that the authorities below have not considered the hardship which the petitioner would suffer in the event of his eviction. It is submitted that the petitioner would suffer a greater hardship. He has placed reliance upon the decision Nand Lal v. Ram Murti Sinha and others, 1979 ARC 55, Sri Puran Chandra Sharma v. Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1979 ARC 257, Babu v. IIIrd Additional District judge, Pilibhit and others, 1978 ARC 186, Brij Behari Kapoor v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad and others, 1983 (2) ARC 199, wherein it has been held that it is the duty of the Prescribed Authority to consider the hardship as provided in the fourth proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. There is no dispute upon this legal position. The proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 21 itself provides that the Prescribed Authority has to consider the comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant.