IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 616 of 2002 (M/S) [ Chota Bhai Jetha Bhai Patel Tobacco Product Company Limited, Through its Branch Manager, Branch Office Ranikhet, District Almora. ...…………. Petitioner Versus Sri Govind Ballabh Bhatt S/o late Sri Prem Ballabh Bhatt R/o Dharamshala Line, Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. ...………… Respondent Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Anil Bisht, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.02.1996, passed by the Prescribed Authority, Pithoragarh, whereby release application of the landlord has been allowed. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 01.08.2002, passed by the Appellate Court (District Judge, Pithoragarh), in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 06 of 1996, whereby the order dated 15.02.1996, passed by the Prescribed Authority, in Rent Control Case No. 01 of 1994, is affirmed. 2 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner Chota Bhai Jetha Bhai Patel Tobacco Product Company Limited, is a tenant in the accommodation in question situated in Dharamshala Line, Pithoragarh, since 1967. Said building originally belonged to Prem Ballabh Bhatt (father of the respondent). Mr. Govind Ballabh Bhatt (respondent) lives along with his family in the adjoining house belonging to him, which consists of seven rooms. According to the petitioner, family of the landlord (respondent) consists of himself, his wife, one son, widowed mother, brother, brother’s wife and two unmarried sisters. It is alleged by the petitioner that earlier the respondent got forcibly vacated ground floor of the building in 1987, where after one Navin Chandra occupied the shop in the ground floor. The accommodation in dispute is in the first floor, which is a residential one. It is further pleaded by the petitioner (tenant) that the respondent has inducted two tenants namely Mahesh Chand Joshi and ‘Prerna Manch’, illegally (i.e. without allotment order). It is further pleaded that the landlord’s application moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for release of the accommodation in question on the 3 ground of his need, is not genuine. It is also stated in the writ petition that Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court have erred in law in holding that the need of the landlord is genuine, and that the comparative hardship is more in his favour. It is alleged that the Prescribed Authority is swayed by the fact that the landlord is a lawyer, and believed the story pleaded by him. 4) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent / landlord it has been stated that there are more than eight members in the family of the landlord who are living in an old adjoining building in which many cracks have developed. It is further pleaded that the building in which presently landlord’s family lives is built over Nazul land, and the Nagar Palika has refused to grant permission to repair said building. It is further stated by the respondent in his counter affidavit, that he is a lawyer and needs the accommodation not only for residence of his family, but also for setting up his office / chamber for practicing the law. It is denied that the petitioner forcibly grabbed the ground floor of the building from the petitioner. Rather, it has been stated that he only requested the petitioner to vacate the ground floor in which now Navin Chandra is running his shop. As to the tenants namely Mahesh Chand Joshi and ‘Prerna Manch’ inducted by the landlord are concerned, it has been stated that accommodation has been let out to them in the second floor which does not 4 fulfill the need of the landlord for residence of his family and for opening the office / chamber. It is also pleaded by the landlord that tenants Mahesh Chand Joshi and ‘Prerna Manch’ were in occupation since before the filing of the release application. Denying the impugned order challenged in the writ petition, it is stated on behalf of the respondent that the two authorities rightly found the need of the landlord as genuine, and comparative hardship more in his favour. 5) In the rejoinder affidavit averments made in the writ petition are reiterated. 6) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that landlord’s need of the accommodation in question is not bonafide as there are seven rooms in the adjoining building in which the landlord and his family resides. The Prescribed Authority has discussed said fact at length and found that in the adjoining building it is not the petitioner’s but also his brother’s family which resides with him. It is also discussed in detail by the Prescribed Authority that said adjoining building is already in a dilapidated condition and petitioner’s need to shift to the present accommodation is not false. It has also been mentioned by the authorities below before coming to the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bonafide as the landlord who is a lawyer has to set up his office / chamber where the litigants and outsiders may come and meet him. The authorities below have 5 discussed that said need cannot be fulfilled in the building where he is living at present with the joint family. 7) Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavits on record, this Court is of the view that the finding recorded by the authorities below, which is concurrent, and based on evidence on record, does not require any interference by this Court. 8) As to the comparative hardship it is argued by Mr. Alok Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord can open his office / chamber either on the ground floor, behind the shop in possession of Naveen Chandra or in the second floor where the tenants namely Mahesh Chandra Joshi and ‘Prerna Manch’ are inducted. As far as the accommodation which is occupied by other tenants is concerned, it is settled principle of law that it is the convenience of the landlord from whom he wants to get vacated accommodation to fulfill his bonafide need. He cannot be compelled to proceed against another tenant only for the reason that in the building there are other tenants also. The Prescribed Authority has taken note of the fact that petitioner (tenant) is an economically well of company and its Sales Manager who has occupied the accommodation in question for his residence can be shifted anywhere by the petitioner. As such, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the 6 authorities below in concluding that comparative hardship is also more in favour of the landlord as against the tenant (petitioner). 9) For the reasons as discussed above, this court does not find any force in the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice the petitioner is allowed time upto 31st of December 2009, for vacating the premises, where after the landlord may get the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, executed in accordance with law. Costs easy. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. September 10, 2009. H. Negi