IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1821 (M/S) of 2010 Amar Nath …Petitioner Versus Smt. Omkari Devi & others …Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. A release application was filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are the landlords, showing the need of the respondent no. 3 to do business from the shop in question. The petitioner, who is the tenant, resisted the application contending that the landlord has no bonafide need and does not require the premises. The trial court, after considering the material evidence on record, found that the need of the landlord was genuine and bonafide. The prescribed authority, accordingly, allowed the release application and directed eviction of the tenant/petitioner. The prescribed authority also considered the comparative hardship and held that the landlord would suffer more than the tenant. The tenant, being aggrieved, filed an appeal, which also met the same fate. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed by the tenant/petitioner before this Court. Heard Sri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.P. Nautiyal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Jayvardhan Kandpal, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 4 & 5. 2 During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner made two submissions contending that the landlord had four shops in his possession in the premises in question, which he could easily utilize for his business purposes and therefore, there was no need to disrupt the petitioner from the shop in question, where he was carrying on his business since 1969. On this issue, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that there are no four shops in existence and the four rooms, which the petitioner is alleging, are residential rooms of the landlords. Further, there is a side lane and there is no appropriate approach road. It was also stated that these facts were duly considered by the trial court and the lower appellate court and that the stand of the petitioner was not found to be correct. In order to resolve the matter on this issue, the Court appointed a Court Commissioner, who went to the spot and submitted his report dated 20th December, 2011. The Commissioner has categorically held that on the back portion of the disputed shops, there are six rooms in a row, which are being used for residential purposes only. The six rooms comprise of four bedrooms and two kitchens, which are interconnected. These rooms and kitchens do not have any independent entrance from the main Chakrata road and could only be accessed through the gate of the house of Sri L.D. Dobhal, who is a cousin of the landlord. In the light of the aforesaid, it is clear that the accommodation in question, which the petitioner alleges, cannot be used for commercial purposes and consequently, the stand of the petitioner on this count 3 is patently misconceived. The court below also found that there are no vacant shops, which the landlord could use for his own purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, one adjoining shop was released in favour of the landlord, which was brought on record by filing an amendment application, which was allowed by the prescribed authority. The tenant also led evidence before the prescribed authority indicating that the need of the landlord was now satisfied by the release of the shop. The learned counsel submitted that in spite of bringing such evidence on record and in spite of raising specific pleas, the prescribed authority did not consider this aspect of the matter while releasing the shop. Not only the prescribed authority but the lower appellate court also failed to consider this aspect of the matter and consequently, on account of non-consideration of an essential aspect, the order of the court below was liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the Court finds that the respondents admit that the adjoining shop was released during the pendency of the present proceedings, but submitted that the shop was released in favour of respondent no. 2, who is another landlord, for his personal need. In support of the submission, the release application and the order of the prescribed authority has also been filed, which indicates the need of respondent no. 2. The order of the prescribed authority also shows that the shop was released in favour of respondent no. 2. In the light of the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel 4 for the petitioner that the need of the landlord was satisfied upon the release of the adjoining shop, is patently erroneous. No other argument was raised. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 22-12-2011 Salim/