The landlord's bona fide need for premises cannot be questioned by the tenant regarding alternative accommodation; the landlord is the sole arbiter of his needs.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajit Kumar, J.)

Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent - landlord.

2. This is a tenant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking superintending and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to question the findings of the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority on the score of release application being granted exercising power chiefly under Section 21(1)(a) and then at the same time under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

3. There is no dispute qua jural relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and the respondent, however, the plea is set up in defence by the tenant before the prescribed authority as well as before the appellate authority was that tenant had sufficient alternative accommodation in the form of a vacant space behind the shops in question being used as a godown and, therefore, neither the need was so pressing, nor bona fide one inasmuch as on the point of comparative hardships, the petitioner having no other source of livelihood except the business being run from the shop, it lilted more in favour of the tenant.

4. Here another point pressed before this Court is that after the release application was filed petitioner came to know that some partition had already taken amongst the co-owners of the property and the property in question having gone to the share of Vijay Prakash Bajpai, one of the respondents in the release application, the need set up by the landlord-respondent no more remained bona fide.

5. A third argument was also advanced that certain documents were sought to be led qua separate share as a result of partition, by moving appropriate application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC but hearing as to the admissibility of those documents was deferred to be considered by the Court of appeal at the time of final judgment but it completely got scaped from the consideration by the Court and hence judgment is rendered bad. In support of her argument, she has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand and another v. Ghaziabad Development Authority and others in Appeal (Civil) No. 2349 of 2008 decided on 31st March, 2008.

6. In support of her above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has led the Court to the pleadings raised in the release application, the amended release application, the written statement filed including the written statement filed by Vijay Prakash Bajpai impleaded as proforma respondents in the case and also the survey commission report including the documents sought to be brought on record vide application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on 15th May, 2024. She has taken the Court through the grounds raised in appeal also to question the order of prescribed authority for there being no findings touching the point of availability of alternative accommodation.

7. Yet another argument advanced by Ms. Shreya Gupta is that release application could not have been allowed simulteneously under Section 21(1)(a) and Section 21(1) (b) of the Act No. - 13 of 1972. In support of her argument learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Guru Prasad v. 1st Additional District Judge, Kanpur, 1999 (2) ARC 28.

8. Meeting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate submitted before the Court that throughout the plea taken in the release application was that accommodation needed for the landlord to settle the sons and heirs and it was also throughout the case that there was a joint family but for the mutual convenience they had adjusted the accommodation into possession specific, however, there had been no partition in metes and bounds and, therefore it would not lie in the mouth of tenant to suggest that the shop in question had fallen in the share of Vij