Sant Ram v. District Judge, Dehradun — 1979 DIGILAW 1138 (ALL)

ORDER S.D. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution has been filed by the tenant of shop No. 15. Ghosi Gali Dehradun. By this petition, he has sought for the quashing of the order dated December 19, 1977 passed by the learned District Judge, Dehradun as also the order dated July 11, 1977 passed by the Prescribed Authority. 2. Sri Deoki Nandan, landlord, who has been arrayed as respondent no. 3, filed an application under section 21 of the U. P. Act no. XIII of the 1972 against the petitioner as also against one Smt. Jaswant Kaur on the ground that the building in their possession was required for his residence. The accommodation in the occupation and tenancy of Smt. Jaswant Kaur consisted of two rooms and the accommodation in the occupation and tenancy of the petitioner consists of one small room measuring about 12' x 8'. The Prescribed Authority accepted the alleged need of the landlord as being genuine and directed release of the accommodation both in the occupation and tenancy of Smt. Jaswant Kaur as also the petitioner in this petition. Two appeals under section 22 of the Act were filed against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority before District Judge, Dehradun. Both these appeals were decided by a common judgment. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the family of the landlord comprised of 8 persons and the total accommodation both in the tenancy and occupation of Smt. Jaswant Kaur as also of the petitioner comprised of three rooms. He further was of the view that three rooms were hardly sufficient for the family of this size. He also recorded a finding that the accommodation in 177, Lunia Mohalla, Dehradun being in a bad shape became unfit for in habitation and it has become necessary for the landlord who is at present staying in this premises to shift therefrom. The learned District Judge also did not accept the plea on behalf of the tenant he had been living along with his family permanently at Patiala. The learned District Judge concluded that the landlord has been living at Dehradun though he is doing business and also staying at Patiala at times. In substance what the learned District Judge concluded was that for the purposes of business, the landlord was also staying at Patiala from time to time. The learned District Judge concluded that the landlord has been living at Dehradun though he is doing business and also staying at Patiala at times. In substance what the learned District Judge concluded was that for the purposes of business, the landlord was also staying at Patiala from time to time. The learned District Judge also while considering the question of comparative hardship took the view that the accommodation in the occupation and tenancy of Smt Jaswant Kaur alone would not be sufficient but the accommodation in the occupation of Sant Ram also would be necessary, otherwise it would be very difficult for the landlord to squeeze himself and his family into two rooms. In other words, he repelled the submission made before him that the entire accommodation both in the occupation and tenancy of Sint. Jaswant Kaur and Santram would not be necessary to meet the need of the landlord. 3. Smt. Jaswant Kaur filed writ petition No. 138 of 78 in this Court. That writ petition has been dismissed by this Court on September, 19, 1979. That petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that Gurbachan Singh who was real tenant of that accommodation had built a house in the same city and accordingly explanation (1) to section 21 of the Act would apply. In this view, the writ petition of Smt. Jaswant Kaur was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before that the decision in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur would have no applicability to the instant case. This submission of his appears to be correct inasmuch as that case was decided on a different grounds, which is not present in the instant case. I have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, irrespective, of the decision in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the learned District Judge has failed to record a finding as to how many members of the landlord's family stay permanently at Dehradun and Patiala. As already noticed above, the learned District Judge has ultimately come to the conclusion that the landlord's family consists of 8 persons. He has also recorded a finding that the landlord was also doing his business and staying at Patiala at times. As already noticed above, the learned District Judge has ultimately come to the conclusion that the landlord's family consists of 8 persons. He has also recorded a finding that the landlord was also doing his business and staying at Patiala at times. By this, it was meant that though the landlord for the purpose of business stays at Patiala from time to time but certainly by coming to this conclusion the learned District Judge ultimately repelled the contention on behalf of the tenant that the landlord was residing permanently at Patiala. The necessary inference, therefore, which could be drawn from the judgment of the learned District Judge in that he was of the view that that landlord's family permanently resides at Dehradun. The being the position, the question regarding the finding as to how many members of the family resided at Patiala and how many resided at Deharadun does not arise. The judgment of the learned District Judge cannot thus be assailed on this ground. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then submitted that it is not possible for the petitioner to shift his coal business to the said shop, namely, 16 Ghosigali. The learned District Judge in this regard also has ultimately come to the conclusion that the petitioner can shift his business to the adjacent shop. On the question of comparative hardship, he has recorded a finding that the rejection of the application under section 21 of the Act will result in greater hardship to the landlord. No sufficient ground has been made out for interference with these findings. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that the learned District Judge, as also the prescribed Authority by allowing the application under section 21 of the Act have not committed any manifest illegality. 7. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a very old tenant in the accommodation in questions and that the landlord purchased the premises when he was already in occupation of the disputed accommodation as tenant. He submitted on his behalf that he will have to make an alternative arrangement to shift his business as according to him it is not possible for him to shift to the accommodation, namely, 16 Ghosi Gali. The learned District Judge also in this regard has not recorded a very clear finding. He submitted on his behalf that he will have to make an alternative arrangement to shift his business as according to him it is not possible for him to shift to the accommodation, namely, 16 Ghosi Gali. The learned District Judge also in this regard has not recorded a very clear finding. In these circumstances, I consider it necessary in the interest of justice that six months, time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. The petitioner will hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute, to the respondent landlord after the expiry of this period. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.