The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of genuine need of the property for bona fide personal use, the availability of alternative accommodation for the tenant, and the transparency and consistency in the landlord's claims and actions.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J. - Heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arvind Vashistha, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kaushal Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioners being the owner of the tenanted premises has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 12.03.2014 passed by Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Almora in Rent Case No. 03 of 2010 and confirming judgment and order dated 30.05.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Almora in Rent Appeal no.6 of 2014. He has also prayed for appropriate suitable directions and mesne profit to the petitioner by the sole respondent @ Rs. 10,000/- per month.

3. The petitioners inherited the property from their father. Respondent no. 1 is the tenant with respect of the said property or shop. Petitioner no. 1 was in service in Central Warehousing Corporation and he retired in the year 2003. He is not receiving any pension, therefore he decided to setup the shop and carry small business in the shop in question which was in the tenancy of respondent no. 1. In other words, he claimed that he required the same for his bona fide personal use, and, therefore, he filed an application for release of the tenanted premises before the learned Prescribed Authority. The opposite party in this case has claimed that the petitioner has other properties and one of his properties was tenanted to some other person, namely, Shambhu Dutt Joshi but the petitioner got it released through process of the Court for the purpose of his own use. However, the said property was again tenanted to some other person. This fact was not pleaded by the petitioner in his release petition and it came to the Court after filing of the counter affidavit or the written submissions by the sole respondent. This fact is, in fact, disputed by the petitioners during course of hearing, and a commission was deputed. The Commission ascertained the fact and reported in favour of the plea taken by the respondent which shows that the petitioners did not come to the Court i.e. Court of the learned Prescribed Authority with clean hands, in fact, he has suppressed material facts before the Court.

4. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the reported case of Shamshad Ahmed & others. Vs. Tilak Raj (Deceased) through LRS & others, (2008) 9SCC 1 and contends that even when the landlord has other properties, he may require any particular property for bona fide personal use in such a situation his application for release should not have been rejected. The relevant paragraphs relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are 47 and 50. We consider it appropriate to reproduce the same hereunder:-

"47. In the case on hand, a finding had been recorded by the appellate authority that requirement of the landlords for doing business by Matloob Ahmad, husband of applicant No.6 was bona fide and genuine. Thus, the requirement of the landlords was established. The said finding stands today. The High Court by a cryptic order, without disturbing the said finding which was based on appreciation of evidence, set aside the order of eviction against the tenant, inter alia, observing that Matloob Ahmad was a `retired person' and was getting pension and was living in his village at a distance of five kilometers from Dehradun. It is no doubt true that the tenancy was created before about fifty years but that should not be a ground for depriving the landlord for doing business if the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and reasonable.

50. Regarding comparative hardship, nothing has been stated by the tenant as to whether any attempt has been made by him to get alternative accommodation and he failed to get such accommodation. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the appellate authority was right in observing that there was no evidence to show that no shop was available to th