IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 7354 of 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 18834 of 1998) Prithvi Raj S/o Late Shri Rattan Lal R/o Shiv Nagar, Rudrapur District Nainital. ………Petitioner Versus 1. Second Additional District Judge Nainital. 2. Govind Ram, S/o Late Shri Sher Chand R/o Rudrapur, Tehsil Kichha District Nainital. ….Respondents. ALONGWITH Writ Petition No. 7355 of 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 18835 of 1998) 1. Guddu 2. Jitendra Sons of Late Shri Rattan Lal 3. Suman D/o Late Shri Rattan Lal 4. Beli Devi W/o Late Shri Rattan Lal All R/o Shiv Nagar, Rudrapur District Nainital. ………Petitioners Versus 1. Second Additional District Judge Nainital. 2. Govind Ram, S/o Late Shri Sher Chand R/o Rudrapur, Tehsil Kichha District Nainital. ….Respondents. Shri Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate holding brief of Shri Dharmendra Barthwal, counsel for the petitioners. Shri B.D. Pande and Shri B.S. Parihar, Advocates for respondent No. 2. 2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. These two writ petitions are directed against the common judgment and order dated 30.03.1998, passed by Additional District Judge, Nainital, in Rent Control Appeal No. 13 of 1994, and Rent Control Appeal No. 14 of 1994, whereby said appeals are allowed and the shops in question were released in favour of the landlord. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other papers on record, filed with the affidavits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Sher Chand (since deceased) was the landlord of plot/shop No. J-47 and 48, in Khokha Bazar, Rudrapur, Tehsil Kichha (earlier Tehsil Kiccha, was part of District Nainital). The respondents in the two writ petitions were the tenants in the two shops. The landlord moved two release applications under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), claiming bonafide need to run his business of Textile by combining the two shops into one shop. He pleaded in the release applications that though his sons were settled in business, but he wanted to do his independent business, as such, needed the same. As to the comparative hardship, it is pleaded by him that the tenants (petitioners in the writ petitions), can conveniently shift their place of business to other shops. 3 4. The tenants (present petitioners) filed their written statement before the Prescribed Authority and denied that the landlord had bonafide need, as claimed by him. It is further pleaded by the tenants that they will be facing more hardship as against the landlord, if they are made to shift their business. 5. The Prescribed Authority (Munsif, Rudrapur), after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 11.11.1994, rejected the release applications of the landlord, holding that the comparative hardship is more of the tenants, as against the landlord. Aggrieved by said order, the landlord Sher Chand, filed a Rent Control Appeal No. 13 of 1994 (against the tenant Prithvi Raj) and Rent Control Appeal No. 14 of 1994 (against the tenant Beli Devi and others). The Second Additional District Judge, Nainital, to whom the appeals were transferred, after hearing the parties, reversed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and held that need of the landlord was genuine. It further held that the comparative hardship is more in favour of the landlord, as against the tenants. Consequently, it allowed the release applications, moved by the landlord. Hence these writ petitions were filed challenging the order dated 30.03.1998, passed by the appellate court, before Allahabad High Court on 20.05.1998, from where the same are received by 4 transfer to this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the original landlord Sher Chand had died during the pendency of the appeal, as such, the need of the landlord existed no more, and the appellate court (respondent No. 1) has committed error of law in allowing the release applications. I am unable to accept the submission, advanced on behalf of the petitioners for the reason that the need of the landlord is required to be seen, as on the date when the release applications were moved. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, the tenants, by lingering the proceedings, would be taking undue advantage of such changed circumstances. It is not the intention of the legislature. Apart from this, what is relevant in the present case is that the appellate court, while discussing the evidence on record, has given the findings that after the death of the landlord, his grand sons namely Sachin Arora and Arun Arora, are grown up, and it has come on the record that they are to be settled in business in the shops in question. I do not find any error of law, committed by the appellate court (respondent No. 1) in holding the need of the landlord, as genuine. This Court, in its writ jurisdiction is not required to interfere with the finding of fact, recorded by the appellate court, particularly when it is based on evidence on record. In the present case, the finding recorded by the 5 appellate court is not perverse, as the same is based on the evidence, adduced by the parties. After hearing the parties, I found that it was the Prescribed Authority, who erred in law in dismissing the release applications of the landlord without giving any finding on bonafide need of the landlord and merely discussing the comparative hardship. 7. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the comparative hardship was more in favour of the tenants as against the landlord, as the tenants are poor people selling pork meat in the shops in question. I have examined the evidence on record and found that the appellate court has taken note of the fact that Nagar Palika, Kichha, has issued notices to the tenants namely Prithvi Raj and Guddu to shift their shops in Vidhwani market, which was the place fixed by the Nagar Palika for selling the pork meat. The said fact was rightly considered by the appellate court in assessing the comparative hardship between the parties. Evidence has been adduced on behalf of the landlord that the Municipal Board, has specified separate place in selling meat to maintain the hygienic atmosphere within the limits of Nagar Palika. In the opinion of this Court, there is no sufficient reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the appellate court on this point. 8. On behalf of the petitioners, it is also argued that all the heirs of landlord are not substituted in 6 the appeal, as such, the proceedings before the appellate court are vitiated. Perusal of the papers, filed with the affidavits, show that substitution application was moved by son of the landlord for impleadment. It is not necessary to substitute all successors of the owner of the property in the proceedings between the landlord and the tenants. What is relevant in such cases, is the substitution of the new landlord, who has entered into the shoes of deceased landlord. Landlord is a person to whom the rent is payable by the tenants. It is not disputed fact that Govind Ram (respondent No.2), who got substituted is son of the deceased landlord Sher Chand. 9. For the reasons, as discussed above, this Court does not find any error of law, committed by respondent No. 1. As such, the writ petitions are liable to the dismissed. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are allowed to vacate the shops and handover the possession to the landlord by 31.03.2010, failing which the landlord can get the order of the appellate court executed. Costs easy. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:15.09.2009 Sweta 7