Virendra Kumar vs District Judge,Etah and Others

A.K. Yog, J.—Virendra Kumar alias Chhote Lal, tenant has filed this writ petition challenging impugned judgment and order, dated 171999 (Annexure22) passed by Appellate Authority under Section 22 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act).

Briefly stated facts of the case are that landlordrespondent No. 3 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act (registered as P.A. No. 16 of 1989) of accommodation in question wherein petitioner was tenant and using the said accommodation for commercial purposes. Primarily landlord claimed, he needed the accommodation for setting himself.

By means of present judgment, I do not propose to go in detailed facts as the same are not necessary.

The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application by means of judgment and order dated 2291995 (Annexure 19). Being aggrieved, landlord filed appeal, as stated above, under Section 22 of the Act and the same has been allowed by means of aforesaid judgment and order dated 171999.

I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri R.B. Mishra on behalf of petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Gupta appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.

On behalf of petitioner it is submitted that apart from various infirmities in the impugned judgment, manifest error apparent on the face of record is that the Appellate Authority while discussing the question of bonafide need of the landlord, has referred and taking into account the ingredients of Rule 16 (1), subclauses (b) and (c) of the Rules framed under the Act which were not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case for a commercial building.

According to the petitioner aforesaid provisions were relevant for the purpose of residential building and not commercial. It cannot be said as to the relevant consideration, with reference to the aforesaid provisions, Appellate Authority was influenced and hence the entire approach of the Appellate Authority in making observations while discussing the question of bona fide need has been influenced and to that extent the impugned judgment was vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Appellate Authority also committed manifest error in adopting irrational approach inasmuch as the construction of four shops and that being let out about 20 years back could not at all be relevant for deciding the present situation while the case under the Act.

The learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3 submits that apart from referring Section 16(b) and (c), the Appellate Authority has not solely based its conclusion on that basis and it had appreciated the evidence and thereafter recorded finding. The submission is that the finding of the Appellate Authority can be suspended even nonrelevant consideration will be ignored.

In any view of the matter, it cannot be said as to how deeply consideration of nonrelevant factors have swayed the Appellate Authority and hence I do not agree with the learned counsel for the respondent on this aspect.

Regarding consideration of four shops and their being let out by the tenant about 20 years in the past, on the face of it, it appears, that such consideration ought to have been taken into account with great cautious and could not be taken oa the face value as factor against the, tenant.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the judgment, and order dated 171999 passed by District Judge, Etah, Respondent No. 1, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 139 of 1995 (Ram Gopal Kela v. Virendra Kishore alias Chhotey Lal) deserves to be set aside and the requires to be considered afresh.

In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 17999 passed by District Judge, Etah, Respondent No. 1, in Civil Misc Appeal No. 139 of 1995 (Rani Copal Kela v. Virendra Kishore alias Chhote Lal) (Annexure 22) is set aside and the matter is being remanded with direction to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. It is further observed that learned District Judge shall decide the matter afresh on the basis of evidence on record without being influenced in any manner by its earlier findings or the observations made by this Court in the present writ petition. The learned District Judge may decide the appeal within three months of filing a certified copy of this judgment, keeping in view that release application was filed in the year 1989 and further delay may fully frustrate the purpose of release application.