KANAK SINGH Vs. VIITH A.D.J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the writ petition against the order dated 3.10.1999 and 19.4.1994 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act). Sri Brahmanand (the contesting respondent) is the landlord of the shop in question. He filed an application for release of the shop for need of his sons Sri Pramod Kumar and Sri Rakesh Kumar. Sri Pramod Kumar is a disabled person. Both the Courts below held that the need of the landlord for the release of the shop is bona fide and also compared hardship. Hence the present writ petition. Sri Prakash Krishna, Counsel for the petitioner has argued that Sri Pramod Kumar has inherited some property in District Muzaffarnagar and as such findings of the bona fide need is illegal. The Appellate Court has held that Sri Pramod Kumar has inherited two rooms house situate at 154/7, Mohalla Prempuri Muzaffarnagar but this house is a residential house. It does not mean that Sri Pramod Kumar is doing any business there. So far as the other son is concerned the Court have also held that Sri Rakesh Kumar is unemployed. There is no illegally in the finding recorded by the Courts below so far as the bona fide need or comparative hardship is concerned.

(2.) THE Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that no compensation has been awarded to the petitioner -tenant; this is illegal. In view of the second proviso of the Section 21(1)(a) of the Act the Prescribed Authority has not awarded any compensation. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal. This point was not argued before the Appellate Court. But according to the counsel for the petitioner it is violation of mandatory provision of law and this point can be raised in the writ petition for the first time. In view of the final order that I am passing it is not necessary to decide the point. The writ petition so far as release of premises is concerned has no merit. It is dismissed. However, two years time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute provided he files and undertaking in form of an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within one month. It will not be necessary for the petitioner to pay any rent for the period of two years. This is in lieu of the compensation, which could have been awarded to the petitioner under the second proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act.