IMPORTANT POINT
When the landlord has established that he is the owner of the property and the same is required for his bonafide occupation, the release of the premises is required to be made.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Bopanna, J.

The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54204/2007. Through the said order the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondents herein and has set aside the judgment and order dated 09.10.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Mathura in P.A. Appeal No. 1/2002 whereby the order dated 03.08.2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Upper Civil Judge (C.D.) is upheld. The appellant is, therefore, aggrieved and is before this Court.

2. The appellant herein instituted the petition under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent Act" for short) against the predecessor of the respondents herein seeking release of the premises bearing No.83/72A, Tiwari Gali, Chhatta Bazar, Mathura. The suit was registered as petition No.6/2000 before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority having taken into consideration the rival contentions, on holding that the appellant herein cannot claim ownership right over the coparcenary property and in that light on arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is not the landlord of the respondents and also holding that the bonafide requirement does not exist, had dismissed the petition declining the release of the shop/premises in question.

3. The appellant claiming to be aggrieved by the same had filed the appeal in P.A. Appeal No. 1/2002 before the Appellate Authority, namely, the Special Judge, Mathura. The learned Appellate Judge on reappreciating the entire aspect of the matter had arrived at the conclusion that the appellant herein had lawfully become the owner of the property and in that circumstance considering the predecessor of the respondents herein to be the tenant under the appellant had further examined the matter with regard to the bonafide requirement. Accordingly, the learned Appellate Judge had arrived at the conclusion that the case for release of the property is made out and had accordingly allowed the appeal. While so considering the matter, the learned Appellate Judge had also taken into consideration that an alternative shop bearing No.83/9-C situated at Chhatta Bazar, Mathura measuring 2.5 ft. x 26 ft. standing in the name of the father of the appellant which was vacant be allotted in favour of the respondents so as to mitigate the hardship, if any. In that view, the respondents were directed to vacate the premises in question by taking possession of the said alternative shop No.83/9-C within one month.

4. The respondents herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said order dated 09.10.2007 had filed the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.54204/2007. The learned Single Judge has in fact considered the matter in great detail, more particularly with regard to the claim of ownership made by the appellant herein and keeping in view the provisions contained in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant cannot be considered as a coparcener in respect of the premises in question. Hence the learned Single Judge has also taken a similar view as arrived at by the Prescribed Authority/learned Upper Civil Judge and in that light has reversed the judgment passed by the Appellate Court. The appellant, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior advocate along with Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, learned advocate on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Purnima Bhat, learned advocate on behalf of the respondents and perused the appeal papers.

6. The learned senior advocate for the appellant would contend that the authorities prescribed under the Rent Act in issue had considered the matter and though divergent opinions were expressed, the Appellate Court had in fact apprecia