IMPORTANT POINTS
A female having legal right of residence would be entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from such building for her need u/s 3(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
High Court, under Article 227 is required only to see legality of the impugned order. It cannot substitute its own findings of fact in place of concurrent findings of fact of the courts below.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65612 of 2011 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-tenant and set aside the order dated 04.03.1999 of the Prescribed Authority in U.P.U.B. Case No. 13 of 1994 and order dated 24.08.2011 of the Additional District Judge, Aligarh in U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 07 of 1999.

3. Facts of the case need mention, in brief, infra to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal.

4. The appellant is the landlady of the shop being Shop No. 6 situated on the Dodhpur Road, Aligarh, Building No. 4/569B. The respondent is the tenant in Shop No. 6 and doing business of selling Footwear (shoes and sandals) in the name of Khan Brothers on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-.

5. There are in all 7 shops in the building in which suit shop in situated. Except Shop No.7, all are occupied by different tenants. Shop No. 7 is in occupation of the appellant wherein her daughter Dr. Naheed Parveen is doing medical practice. Initially, Shop No. 7 was occupied by the husband of the appellant, Dr. Ahsan Ahmed, who was practicing medicines in the said shop and after his death, the said shop remained closed for about two-three years and after that her daughter started practicing medicines there.

6. According to the appellant, Shop No. 7 is about 16.9 ft. x10 ft. in area and is inadequate for running clinic.

7. On 11.02.1994, the appellant personally requested the respondent to vacate Shop No. 6 but he did not vacate. Therefore, the appellant filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in the Court of the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aligarh being U.P.U.B. Case No. 13 of 1994 seeking release of Shop No. 6 in her favour for her bona fide requirement and genuine need in comparison to the need of the respondent. It was alleged that the appellant’s daughter, who is a doctor and running her private clinic in Shop No. 7 is finding it difficult and inconvenient to run the clinic due to space constraint in Shop No. 7 and it is for this reason she requires adjacent Shop No. 6 so that both Shops, i.e., 6 and 7 could be used for running the clinic in a comfortable manner. It was also alleged that the appellant’s one son has done his MBBS and is doing M.D. He too would do his practice in the shop in question. It was alleged that there would be no space constraint once both the Shops (6&7) are clubbed together. It was further alleged that the appellant has no other shop available except Shop No. 6 which is most suitable for expansion of clinic being next to Shop No. 7. It was also alleged that the respondent is having his own shops in the same area and hence even if he vacates the shop in question, there will be no hardship to him.

8. The respondent filed his written statement to the application denying the need of the appellant-landlady as bona fide or genuine. Parties adduced evidence.

9. By order dated 04.03.1999, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application and directed the respondent-tenant to vacate the shop in question within 3 months of the date of the order and to give the vacant possession to the appellant-landlady and also pay by way of damages two years’ rent amount within 30 days from the date of the order. It was held that the appellant’s need for using Shop No. 6 is bona fide and genuine and that it is required for expansion of clinic run by the appellant’s daughter in Shop No. 7 and her son. It was held that the appellant has no other suitable shop in city where her daughter/son can run their clinic. It was also held that the respondent has other shops for running his business in