Sudhir Narain, J.@mdashThis writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority whereby a portion of the premises in question was released in favour of landlord respondent and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 3101983 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and allowing the appeal of the landlordrespondent.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioners are tenants of the shop in question in Premises No. 124, Meerganj, Allahabad of which respondent No. 3 is the landlord. Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21(l)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) for release of the shop in question on the ground that he requires the premises for carrying on cloth business. The petitioners contested the application and denied that he requires the disputed shop. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the need of respondent No. 3 is bona fide but considering the existing need of respondent No. 3 and looking to the hardship of the petitioners partly allowed the release application whereby the ground floor portion of the shop was released in favour of respondent No. 3 but as regards the first floor portion of the shop it was rejected. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 both being dissatisfied with the order, filed appeals before the District Judge. The Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal of respondent No. 3 and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners with the result the entire shop consisting of ground floor and first floor has been released in favour of respondent No. 3.
3. I have heard Sri S.N. Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.N. Singh learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
4. On hearing learned counsel for the parties I do not find that there is any legal infirmity in regard to bona fide need of the landlord for the disputed shop. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a supplementary affidavit today that respondent No. 3 has started his business in the name and style of Rochak Chain and Jewellery in premises No. 122, Mecrganj (Chowk), Allahabad, of which respondent No. 3 is the owner. This itself does not show that the petitioners will not carry on cloth business in the shop in question. Secondly, this affidavit has been filed today at the time of hearing the writ petition.
5. The question remains to be decided as lo whether the Appellate Authority was justified in allowing the appeal of respondent No. 3 in respect of first floor portion of the shop in question also. It is settled law that the authority has to consider whether the need of the landlord would be met by releasing only a part of disputed premises as contemplated under Scction21 (1) (a) of the Act. Section 21 (1) itself provides that the Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof. The Appellate Authority has, without examining the extent of the accommodation of ground floor and on the first floor, reversed the finding of the Prescribed Authority. It was to examine the extent of the accommodation on the first floor as well as on the ground floor. He wanted to do cloth business and it was further necessary for the respondent No. 3 to establish that first floor portion of the shop was inquired absolutely without which he could not run the business on the ground floor.
6. Secondly, while comparing the hardship it was the duty of the Appellate Authority to examine as to whether the need of the landlord could be met byreleasing only a part of the disputed shop leaving a part of it so that the tenant may also continue to run the business.
7. As this aspect has not examined the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Appellate Authority in regard to allowing the appeal of respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed. The Appellate Authority will reconsider the matter in accordance with law keeping in view the observation made above within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. He will not normally adjourn the case and if it is very necessary to adjourn the case, not for more than, three days. It will be open to the parties to lead additional evidence before the Appellate Authority. The parties shall bear their own costs.
