OM PRAKASH Vs. SUNHARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court at Allahabad allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents and ordering that the appeal, the order which was impugned in the writ petition, should be decided afresh in the light of the observations made in its judgment.

(2.) THE appellants are the landlords and the respondents the tenants. The appellants filed an eviction petition against the respondents under section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground that they bona fide required the tenanted premises, a shop, for their own use. The prescribed authority under the said Act dismissed the eviction petition holding that the appellants' requirement was not bona fide and that greater hardship would be caused to the respondents than to the appellants. The appellants filed an appeal and the appellate authority allowed the same holding that the requirement of the appellants was genuine and bona fide. It also held in favour of the appellants upon the aspect of comparative hardship.

(3.) EVEN in a second appeal the High Court must restrict itself to questions of law; all the more so in a writ petition. We have referred to the findings of the High Court in some detail. They leave us in no doubt that the High Court re -assessed the evidence and went beyond its legitimate jurisdiction. The intervention of this Court is, therefore, called for, especially since the High Court has directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh" in the light of the observations made above". We do not approve of some of those observations. It is, to take one example, very difficult to see how a landlord can be asked to build alternative premises. To take another, it is very difficult to see how a landlord who had asked for the eviction of a tenant from commercial premises can be faulted for not having given particulars of his residential accommodation and how this can be treated as a purposeful attempt on his part to keep back relevant material from the Court, which should be taken into consideration in deciding his bona fide need. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal are set aside. The order of the appellate authority dated November 26, 1990 is restored. The respondents shall pay to the appellants the costs of the appeal and the writ petition quantitied at Rs. 3,000/ -.