The central legal point established in the judgment is the heavy burden on the landlord to demonstrate genuine need for release of premises under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, and the landlord's privilege to choose the specific shop for release.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—

1. Heard Pt. K.K. Dubey, Advocate for petitioner and Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, Advocate for respondents no. 3 and 3/1.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by Prescribed Authority releasing the premise in dispute, i.e., Shop No. 39/1 in favour of landlord and appellate order dated 09.04.2012 rejecting petitioner's appeal and confirming the order of Prescribed Authority.

3. The property in question initially belong to one Suresh Chandra Agrawal. He filed an application registered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 2005 seeking release of premise in question under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") on the ground that his son Sachin Agrawal, aged about 26 years is married and he want the shop in question vacated for his son who has to start his business of hosiery in the aforesaid shop. The petitioner-tenant filed his written statement in which he took an objection that there were some other shops which were earlier in the tenancy of Sri Sudama Prasad Nikhra and Sri Tiwari and the said shops were vacated about 4-5 years back but landlord leased out the same to other tenants on enhanced rent and, therefore, need of landlord is not genuine. He also pointed out that some shops were sold by landlord after getting vacated.

4. The Prescribed Authority having considered the above submissions, found that need of landlord is bona fide and comparative hardship also lie in his favour and, therefore, allowed the application. The same has been confirmed in appeal also.

5. Sri Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to averments made in para 8 of written statement and submitted that there is virtually no findings on this aspect in the impugned orders. He further submitted, when there are a large number of shops owned by landlord and for some of shops the landlord has also got possession, the application for release of other or another shop, should be considered with great caution. Very sparingly such an application in respect to another or other shop should/can be allowed since the onus lie upon landlord in such circumstance to show bona fide need is very heavy and the Courts under Act, 1972 should consider the matter very cautiously.

6. From the record it appears that there were four shops which became available to landlord long back but in order to meet household expanses, business and also the medical treatment of wife of Sri Suresh Chandra Agrawal, four shops were sold by him on 28.10.1995, 09.07.1997, 08.10.1997 and 14.04.2001. These facts have not been disputed and the courts below have also recorded a concurrent finding. Wife of Late Sri Suresh Chandra Agrawal was suffering from Cancer. He himself was suffering from renal failure. Moreover marriage of three sisters of substituted landlord, i.e., Sri Sachin Agrawal were also due at that time. Having not disputed these facts it cannot be said that sale of shops by landlord in 1995-2001 was not genuine.

7. So far as the two shops which fell vacant sometimes in 2001, as stated by Sri Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, are concerned, at that time the landlord's son was about 21 years of age and admittedly was unmarried. The fact that the need for which shop is question was required existed at that time also has not been shown by learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, it has also come on record that landlord, in order to provide business to his son, made him available some accommodation on the first floor. The respondent no. 3/1 started his business of hosiery on the first floor but having suffered losses due to premise not being suitable for such business the same had to be closed. On this aspect also concurrent findings have been recorded by courts below and the same have not been shown perverse or contrary to record. It is in these circumstances, in the year 2006 release application in question was filed by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document