IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the tenant's failure to contest the landlord's bona fide need led to an adverse inference, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner and Smt. Shreya Gupta learned counsel appearing for the landlord/respondent.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the tenant has been filed questioning the judgment and order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras in UPUB Appeal No. 01 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the Appeal of the Tenant/petitioner has been rejected and the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 06.04.2021 allowing the application of the respondents/landlords under Section 21(1)(a) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 has been upheld.

3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the lis between the parties briefly stated are that the landlord/respondents instituted a P.A. Case being P.A. Case No. 13 of 2014 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 setting up a bona fide need for the shop situate in Gali Kaunjdan Punjabi Market, Hathras under the tenancy of the petitioner. It was stated that the release was sought on the ground that the respondent no. 2 is an Advocate by profession and requires the shop for setting up his chamber. The tenant has no requirement of the shop and is only occupying it to get Pagri. He carries on his business in Mathura. The release application was contested by the petitioner denying the plaint case stating that the shop is very small measuring 8x10 Feet and not at all suitable for establishing an Advocate Chamber. It was also stated that the tenant would suffer greater hardship in comparison to the landlord and prayed that the release application be dismissed.

4. The Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Hathras after due appreciation of the materials on record allowed the release application vide order dated 06.04.2021 holding the need of the landlord/respondents as bona fide and genuine and the question of comparative hardship was also decided in favour of the landlord/respondents and against the petitioner. The Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Prescribed Authority being P.A. Appeal No. 1 of 2021 was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 09.11.2023. Both the orders have been assailed in this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the learned Prescribed Authority without considering and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record upheld the need of the landlord/respondents holding it to be bona fide. Placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Jain vs. Sushila Devi Jain and others, 2021 (1) ARC 742, learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner submits that the landlord is required to first prove and establish his bona fide need for the accommodation in dispute under the tenancy of the tenant. Elaborating his arguments further learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner contends that the need pleaded by the landlord should be natural, real sincere and honest and should not be merely a pretence or pretext to evict a tenant. A mere statement or a pleadings on the part of the landlord that he bona fidely required the said building for a purpose specified in the pleadings is not sufficient but the requirement has to be proved by the landlord by bringing sufficient evidence before the Court. The burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. Learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the objections filed by the tenant/petitioner to the release application under Section 21 (I) (a) to demonstrate that the landlord/respondent no. 2 for quite some time has been practising law and has a chamber existing in which he is carrying of his practice as an Advocate. This fact has deliberately been concealed. The need for the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner is thus not bona fide. Besides by way of an evidence affidavit/paper no. 32 C has esta